01-21-14 Regular City Commission MinutesJANUARY 21, 2014
A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, was called to order by Mayor Cary Glickstein in the Commission Chambers at
City Hall at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 21, 2014.
1. Roll call showed:
Present - Commissioner Shelly Petrolia
Commissioner Alson Jacquet
Commissioner Adam Frankel
Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray
Mayor Cary Glickstein
Absent - None
Also present were - Louie Chapman, Jr., City Manager
Terrill Pybum, Interim City Attorney
Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk
Prior to the prayer, Mayor Glickstein observed a moment of silence in
memory of former Commissioner Patricia Archer who passed away.
2. The opening prayer was delivered by Chaplain Howard Meridy.
3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was
given.
4. AGENDA APPROVAL.
Mrs. Gray moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
January 7, 2014, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as
follows: Mr. Jacquet — Yes; Mr. Frankel — Yes; Mrs. Gray — Yes; Mayor Glickstein —
Yes; Mrs. Petrolia — Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
5. PRESENTATIONS:
5.A. RESOLUTION NO. 05 -14: Approve Resolution No. 05 -14 recognizing
and commending Patricia A. Rashkind for 30 years. of dedicated service to the City of
Delray Beach.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, RECOGNIZING
AND COMMENDING PATRICIA A. RASHKIND FOR
THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH.
01/21/14
(The official copy of Resolution No. 05 -14 is on file in the City Clerk's
office.)
Mayor Glickstein moved to approve Resolution No. 05 -14, seconded by
Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel — Yes; Mrs.
Gray — Yes; Mayor Glickstein — Yes; Mrs. Petrolia — Yes; Mr. Jacquet — Yes. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
Patricia Rashkind came forward to accept the proclamation and gave a few
brief comments.
Anthony Strianese, Police Chief, came forward and thanked Patricia
Rashkind for her thirty years of dedicated service to the City of Delray Beach.
At this point, Mayor Glickstein presented the following proclamation by
this Commission that was issued after the last regular meeting and although the day has
passed he feels it is appropriate to go through this again.
S.B. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day — January 20, 2014
Mayor Glickstein read a proclamation into the record hereby proclaiming
January 20, 2014 as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the City of Delray Beach and urged
all citizens to reflect upon the efforts and sacrifices made by Dr. King on behalf of all
Americans enjoying in the celebration of his contributions to the struggle for peace and
freedom for our nation and throughout the world.
At this point, the Commission moved to Comments and Inquiries on
Agenda and Non - Agenda Items from the City Manager and the Public Immediately
Following Presentations.
6. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries.
With regard to a previous concern expressed by Carole Anderson, the City
Manager stated the Environmental Services Department (ESD) contacted Jim Smith
regarding the S.A.F.E. proposal and they will provide the Commission a more detailed
update at a later meeting.
The City Manager stated with regard to the food trucks downtown at
special events he has agreed to put together a Task Force to build a set of rules to better
cover the subject.
With regard to Commissioner Gray's concern about loitering at S.W. 5th
Avenue (Libby Wesley Park), the City Manager stated on January 2, 2014, the Police
Department received a complaint of trespassing and loitering at Libby Wesley Park and
since this complaint Community Patrol Officers and Specialty Unit Officers have
conducted several extra patrols on foot at the location during all times of the day and
2
O1 /21/14
night. The City Manager stated several subjects were encountered and some arrests were
made. The Police Department will continue to address these issues.
With regard to Mrs. Petrolia's concern about the importance of preserving
the downtown, the City Manager stated the City is looking into a form -based code.
With regard to Mayor Glickstein's concern about additional bid language
being included in the Agenda, the City Manager stated this language has been included in
the current Agenda and will be followed upon on future agendas.
With regard to Mr. Jacquet's suggestion about parking passes for the City
Commission, the City Manager stated he would like Commission direction on this.
With regard to Mr. Jacquet's concern about the street naming, the City
Manager stated he would like direction on this as well.
Mayor Glickstein stated the street naming is a discussion item tonight on
the regular agenda.
Mr. Jacquet stated last time the Commission spoke about the parking
passes the City Manager informed the Commission that he was going to get those parking
passes for the Commission. The City Manager stated he has not been directed by the
entire City Commission to do this.
Mayor Glickstein suggested that the Commission discuss this at the end of
the meeting during Commission comments and see how the Commission would like to
proceed.
6.B. From the Public.
6.B.1. Pauline Moody, 609 S.W. 8th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, asked
about the status of the Waste Management contract.
Secondly, Ms. Moody commented about the recognition award she
received last December.
6.B.3. Gary Ferreri, sneaking on behalf of the Police Benevolent Association
(PBA), read a brief statement into the record and urged the Commission to expedite the
negotiation process.
6.B.4. Dr. Victor Kirson, D.D.S., 2050 Alta Meadows Lane #2110, Delray
Beach, FL 33444 (President of the Board of Directors of Tierra Verde at Delray
Beach and Member of the Alliance), echoed comments expressed by Mr. Ferreri. Dr.
Kirson stated the City is reportedly up 5% in crime.
6.B.5. .lean Rose Shuman, owner of Naked Hair Salon, 10 S.E. 1st Avenue,
Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated during the Delray Affair the street gets blocked off and
01/21/14
they would have a booth located outside on lit Avenue and Atlantic Avenue where for
the past three (3) years they have paid $300 for. Ms. Shumann stated this year she was
informed if they wanted to participate they would now have to pay $2,500 for that same
location. She stated they do not want to stop any events that go on in downtown but they
only wish to continue to be a part of it but stated because they are not able to participate
her business is hurt tremendously during that period of time. Ms. Shumann stated as
much as they adore the events they still have to remain sustainable as a business of their
own and being there helps them to capture some revenue during that 3 -day period of the
Delray Affair.
6.B.6. Adam Shumann, stated he has an email from Karen_ _Granter, City of
Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce showing what they paid for the booth in 2011,
2012 and 2013. Mr. Shumann stated every time there is an event downtown their street is
blocked and noted their normal customers get ticketed every day on that street and the
vendors get to park on their block free. Mr. Shumann stated he feels that for the fee of
the booth to increase from $300 to $2,500 in one year is price gouging not inflation.
6.8.7. Maior Joe Bernadel, retired Maior with the United States Army (22
years) and President/Founder of the Toussaint L'Ouverture Charter High School,
stated he supports the street renaming as suggested by Commissioner Jacquet.
7. AGENDA APPROVAL.
Mrs. Petrolia requested that Item 8.E., Service Authorization No. 12-
10f Mathews Consultin Inc./Delray Shores Water Main, Item 8.F., Service
Authorization No. 12- 11/Mathews Consulting, Inc./Tronic Palm Water Main
Project, Item S.G., Service Authorization No. 12 -3 /Calvin, Giordano and Associates,
Inc., Item S.H., Service Authorization No. 12- 041Wantman Group, Inc., Item 8.J.,
Revisions to the Commission Rules of Procedure, Item 8.K., FY 2014 Performance
Measures for the Tennis Facilities, Lakeview Golf Course and the Municipal Golf
Course, Item S.L., Interlocal Agreement/Palm Beach County Drowning Prevention
Coalition (DPQ, Item 8.N., Payments to Airgas Carbonic, and Item 8.0., Payments
to Sentry Industries be moved to the regular meeting of February 4, 2014.
Mayor Glickstein stated staff requests to postpone Item 10.A., Ordinance
No. 01 -14 until the Planning and Zoning Board has considered the item.
Mrs. Petrolia requested that Item 8.T.3., Purchase Award to Otto
Environmental Systems be removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the
Regular Agenda as Item 9.1).
Mrs. Gray moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mrs.
Petrolia. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray — Yes; Mayor
Glickstein — Yes; Mrs. Petrolia — Yes; Mr. Jacquet — Yes; Mr. Frankel — Yes. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
4
01/21/14
8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval.
8.A. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT /SHIELD INVESTMENT
GROUP, INC.: Approve a Hold Harmless Agreement with Shield Investment Group,
Inc. to install/construct utilities in the State right -of -way for the property located at 440
S.E. 5th Avenue.
S.B. LIMITED ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT/N.E. 9" STREET:
Approve a Limited Access Easement Agreement with Marc and Deborah Matarazzo to
allow the front setback to be determined from N.E. 9th Street for the property located at
N.E. 9th Street.
8.C. LIMITED ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT/899 N.E. 2ND
AVENUE: Approve a Limited Access Easement Agreement with N.E. 91 Street, LLC.
to allow the front setback to be determined from N.E. 9th Street for the property located
at 899 N.E. 2nd Avenue.
8.D. ACCEPTANCE OF A WATER EASEMENT DEEDITROPIC
HARBOR CONDOMINIUM: Approve and accept an exclusive water easement decd
for a water main at Tropic Harbor Condominium located at 800 Tropic Isle Drive.
8.E. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO FEBRUARY 4, 2014.
$_F. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO FEBRUARY 4 2014.
S.G. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO FEBRUARY 4, 2014.
S.H. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO FEBRUARY 4, 2014.
8.I. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE TROLLEY OPERATIONS
AGREEMENTIUNI UE TRANSPORTATION INC.: Approve Amendment No. 1 to
the Trolley Operations Agreement with Unique Transportation, Inc., to modify the scope
of services to include exterior cleaning of the trolleys and to change provisions pertaining
to the Inspector General and Public Records to comply with the provisions of the Palm
Beach County Inspector General's Office.
8.J. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO FEBRUARY 4 2014.
8.K, THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO FEBRUARY 4 2014.
S.L. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO FEBRUARY 4, 2014.
S.M. MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AGREEMENT/OXFORD BUSINESS
CORPORATION: Approve a restated Memorandum of Lease Agreement between the
City of Delray Beach and Oxford Business Corporation for the Federspiel Parking
Garage/Block 77 Parking Space Lease Agreement.
8.N. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO FEBRUARY 4 2014.
5
01/21/14
8.0. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO FEBRUARY 4, 2014.
8.P. RESOLUTION NO. 08 -14: Approve Resolution No. 08 -14 and provide
authorization to endorse the Mayors' Climate Action Pledge which affirms support for
the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, agreeing to consider
implementing the Regional Climate Action Plan in whole or in part as appropriate, and
urges all Mayors of Palm Beach County to support the Mayors' Climate Action Pledge.
The caption of Resolution No. 08 -14 is as follows:
A PLEDGE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ENDORSING
THE MAYORS' CLIMATE ACTION PLEDGE,
AFFIRMING SUPPORT FOR THE SOUTHEAST
FLORIDA REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE
COMPACT, AGREEING TO CONSIDER
IMPLEMENTING THE REGIONAL CLIMATE ACTION
PLAN IN WHOLE OR IN PART AS APPROPRIATE
FOR EACH MUNICIPALITY, AND URGING ALL
MAYORS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY TO SUPPORT
THE MAYORS' CLIMATE ACTION PLEDGE;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(The official copy of Resolution No. 08 -14 is on file in the City Clerk's
office.)
8Q LETTER OF INTENTIPARTNERSHIP TO ADVANCE SCHOOL
SUCCESS ASS : Approve a Letter of Intent with the Council for Educational Change
to participate in a matching grant opportunity for Carver Middle School to create a
Partnership to Advance School Success (PASS).
8.R. PROCLAMATIONS:
1. None
8_S. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards
for the period January 6, 2014 through January 17, 2014.
S.T. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Bid award to Man -Con, Inc. (Bid #2014 -14), in the amount of
$1,456,545.00 for construction of the Area 12A- Phase 2
Reclaimed Water System project. The recommendation for award
is in compliance with Ordinance No. 29 -13, Chapter 36,
"Acquisition of Goods and Services and Disposal of City
Property ", Section 36.02, "Methods of Acquisition ", (A) "Sealed
6
01/21/14
Competitive Method ". Funding is available from 441- 5161 -536-
68.73 (Water and Sewer Fund: Improvements Other/Reclaim
Water, Area 12A), 448 -5461 -538 -68.67 (Storm Water Utility
Fund: Other Improvement/Bay Street Pump Station
Improvement), 442- 5178 - 536 -63.50 (Water & Sewer Renewal &
Replacement Fund: Improvements Other /Water Mains) and 442-
5178 -536 -63.51 (Water & Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund:
Improvements Other /Sewer Mains).
2. Purchase award to Odyssey Manufacturing Company in the
amount of $210,600.00 for the purchase and delivery of Sodium
Hypochlorite for the Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The
recommendation for award is in compliance with Ordinance No.
29 -13, Chapter 36, "Acquisition of Goods and Services and
Disposal of City Property ", Section 36.02 (C) "Direct Acquisition
Method ", (7)(c) "Utilization of Other Governmental Entities'
Contracts ". Funding is available from 441 -5122- 536 -52.21 (Water
and Sewer Fund: Operating Supplies /Chemicals).
3. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR
AGENDA AS ITEM 9.D.
4. Purchase award to CDW- Government in the amount of
$271,149.20 per Florida State Contract 250- 0000 -09 -1 for
replacement of the Office Management System (OMS) servers and
disk storage space for the City's SAN (Storage Area Network)
units. This recommendation for award is in compliance with
Ordinance No. 29 -13, Chapter 36.02(C) "Direct Acquisition
Method ", (8) "Cooperative Acquisitions ". Funding is available
from 334 - 6112 - 519 -64 -11 (General Construction Fund:
Machinery /Equipment/Computer Equipment).
5. Purchase award to NDM Technologies in the amount of
$37,158.08 to replace the core switches with new switches that will
support the increased capacity of the fiber optic cabling. The
recommendation for award is in compliance with Ordinance No.
29 -13, Chapter 36.02(C) "Direct Acquisition Method ", (11) "Best
Interest Acquisitions ". Funding is available from 334- 6111 -519-
62.45(General Construction Fund: Capital Outlay /Data Cabling).
6. Purchase award to CDW - Government in the amount of $78,992.44
for replacement of the current network backup system to a rapid
recovery system. The recommendation for award is in compliance
with Ordinance No. 29 -13, Chapter 36.02(C) "Direct Acquisition
Method ", (11) "Best Interest Acquisitions ". Funding is available
from 334 -6111 -519 -64.11 (General Construction Fund: Machinery
Equipment/ Computer Equipment).
7
01/21/14
Mrs. Petrolia moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended,
seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor
Glickstein — Yes; Mrs. Petrolia — Yes; Mr. J'acquet — Yes; Mr. Frankel — Yes; Mrs. Gray
— Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
9. REGULAR AGENDA:
9.A. RE VEST FOR SIDEWALK DEFERRAL AGREEMENT1331 N.E.
8 'r AVENUE: Consider a sidewalk deferral agreement with Mitzi Katz to install a
sidewalk along N.E. 8h Avenue for the property located at 331 N.E. 8a' Avenue.
Randal Krejcarek, Director of Environmental Services, stated staff does
not support the deferral is because of the location with this to the Central Business
District (CBD). Mr. Krejcarek stated one of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan is to
encourage other modes of transportation and to provide safe pedestrian access to the
downtown which additional sidewalks would help. He stated north of this location there
are two (2) single family structures that are putting sidewalks in. Mr. Krejcarek stated
there are other remodelings that are happening in the same neighborhood but they do not
cross the threshold that would require them to install a sidewalk at this time.
Mitzi Kaitz, 110 N.E. 6"' Street, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated she
respects that Delray Beach should be a safer place with better pedestrian walkways but
she stated the plan that FDOT has proposed is flawed. Ms. Kaitz stated Engineering is
only asking it of new builds. She distributed photographs to the Commission of a new
build that just received a CO two months ago (no sidewalk) and two very large rehab
houses on 8t' Avenue that have no sidewalks. Ms. Kaitz suggested that a plan of
beautifying the area with cobblestones or stamped concrete or something that coincides
with the small town feel of Palm Trail. Ms. Kaitz urged the Commission to defer this
sidewalk until the Engineering Department and the residents of Palm Trail agree on a
plan that offers both the safety to the pedestrians and beauty to the homeowners.
Mr. Frankel asked why the City does not do a sidewalk for everyone. Mr.
Krejcarek stated staff is tying the request to the LDR requirement that if you are doing a
new building then you need to put in a sidewalk. Mr. Krejcarek stated the intent of staff
is to come back and fill in the gaps later. Mr. Frankel stated having gaps of sidewalks is
dangerous. Mr. Krejcarek stated the sidewalk deferral goes with the property and
whoever the current owner is at that time the City calls the deferral in is the person
required to put the sidewalk in. Mr. Krejcarek stated the City is trying to require that the
City put in the sidewalk and not burden a property owner in the future.
Mrs. Petrolia asked how many pieces of sidewalk the City currently has on
8`h Avenue. Mr. Krejcarek stated the City has three locations that the City is actually
putting in the sidewalk and one location that carne in four years ago that the City granted
the deferral to and staff realized that was not the appropriate thing to do at that time. Mr.
Krejcarek stated for the other two locations on N.E. 8h Avenue the City requested the
sidewalk and it is being put in now. Mrs. Petrolia asked if there is a time specific date
8
01/21/14
that staff is going to be asking for the deferrals to be coming in as far as what the City has
been giving out to have them place the sidewalks in. Mr. Krejcarek stated at this point
staff does not have a date. However, Mr. Krejearek stated for S.W. 14"' Avenue the City
took a deferral in the early 2000's and the City did a project there two years ago. Mr.
Krejcarek stated it depends on the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and what
the plans are.
Mrs. Gray asked how many sidewalks are put in each year and how much
does that actually cost. Mr. Krejcarek stated in addition to the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) that the City receives every year which varies in amount ($50,000-
$90,000); there is an additional $50,000; $25,000 came from the CRA and $25,000 from
the City. Mr. Krejcarek stated the cost of filling in the gaps is done a couple of ways:
one, with the CDBG Block Grant if it is in the target area; this year there is money from
the CRA; and the City crews go out and fill in gaps in certain area (i.e. route to high
school; S.W. 4t' Street). Mr. Krejcarek confirmed with Commissioner Gray that for all
the needs the City has there is not enough money.
Mayor Glickstein asked why this sidewalk deferral agreement is different
than other sidewalk deferrals that have been approved in the past on the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Krejcarek stated they listen to the HOA of the area and noted that the City
Commission has approved multiple deferrals in the Tropic Isles area because the HOA
has come before the City asking for sidewalks. In his opinion, Mayor Glickstein stated it
is onerous on this applicant to now require it without more of a comprehensive policy in
place and that would include going back to some of these HOAs to take another look at
this.
Ms. Kaitz stated there are currently no sidewalks so she would be the first
to get sidewalks. In addition, Ms. Kaitz stated she has offered to pay for the sidewalk and
put it in the City coffers for a future date. Ms. Katz stated there needs to be a better
Master Plan for 8a` Avenue keeping it charming, cohesive, and safe.
Mayor Glickstein agreed with comments expressed by Ms. Katz.
Brief discussion between Commissioner Jacquet and Mr. Krejcarek
followed. Mr. Krejcarek explained that the City does not want to take money because the
City would be taking today's dollars and if the sidewalk is built five years from now they
are building with dollars that are five years old. Also, Mr. Krejcarek stated because of
the City's requirements which are much harder so a private developer can put a sidewalk
in much cheaper than the City can put it in. Mr. Krejcarek reiterated that whoever owns
the property at the time the City decides that the sidewalks go in that particular property
owner gets to put them in.
Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Request for Sidewalk Deferral
Agreement for 331 N.E. Bch Avenue, seconded by Mr. Jacquet. Upon roll call the
Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Petrolia — Yes; Mr. Jacquet -- Yes; Mr. Frankel
Yes; Mrs. Gray — Yes; Mayor Glickstein — Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
9
01/21/14
9.B. APPEALS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE
BOARD'S (SPRAB) ACTIONSIATLANTIC CROSSING: Consider privately -
initiated appeals of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) actions on the
Class V site for Atlantic Crossing, located on the north side of East Atlantic Avenue,
between N.E. 6t' Avenue and Veterans Park. (Quasi - Judicial Hearing)
Mayor Glickstein read the City of Delray Beach Quasi - Judicial rules into
the record for this item.
Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to
give testimony on this item.
Terrill Pyburn, Interim City Attorney, asked each Commissioner
individually to disclose their ex parte communications with regard to Atlantic Crossing.
Mr. Frankel disclosed that to the best of his knowledge he met with the
applicant, the attorneys for the applicant and developers, all communications previously
disclosed at prior meetings and to the best of his memory regaxding any subject related to
Atlantic Crossing/Atlantic Plaza and the like he spoke with Gary Goldfarb, Woodie
McDuffie, Tom Carney, his family, Rick Burgess, Gerald Franciosa, Andre Fladell, Brad
Winney, communications at a DDA meeting he attended, hundreds of emails listed on the
City of Delray Beach server. In addition, Mr. Frankel disclosed that he read Facebook
pages (Team Delray and Delray Raw) and a Chamber of Commerce email with their
position (some people supporting the project and some against the project); however, he
did not communicate or speak to any of those social media outlets.
Mrs. Gray disclosed that she had communications with the attorneys, the
applicant, representatives from the Beach Property Owners' Association (BPOA),
representatives from the Marina District, Palm Trail District, Lake Ida District, has seen
Facebook communications (Team Delray and Delray Raw) and emails about the project.
Mrs. Gray stated she has not submitted the emails to the City Clerk but they are on the
City's server. Mrs. Gray stated the communications were concerns about traffic and the
size of the project.
. Mayor Glickstein disclosed that in addition to attending several public
meetings he has received numerous emails all of which are on the City server, attended a
meeting with representatives of the Palm Trail Association to discuss the road closure,
attended a meeting at City Hall with the Developers' Design Consultants, Planning staff,
and the City Manager to discuss the history of project modifications, attended a meeting
at City Hall with the appellants, a representative of the Florida Coalition, Planning staff,
Engineering staff, and Interim City Attorney to summarize their concerns. In addition,
Mayor Glickstein stated he spoke with the Project Agent Mike Covelli and conveyed a
summary of that meeting in the company of the Interim City Attorney, and spoke with the
Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) Chair Rustem Kupi. Mayor
Glickstein stated he did not view any Facebook pages and stated his emails are part of the
10
01/21/14
City's server.
Mrs. Petrolia disclosed that she spoke to the attorneys for the applicant
Bill Morris, Bob Currie, Mr. Edwards, Anita Goldstein, Kelly Barrette, Chamber email,
met with Interim City Attorney last week to discuss some of the issues, Rustem Kupi,
Chair of SPRAB, BPOA, and the Marina District. Mrs. Petrolia stated this was not on the
City Commission Agenda until more recently and does not believe that this was
discussed and disclosed that she received emails that are on the City's server. Mrs.
Petrolia stated the nature of the communications that she had with the various groups
were some in support and some against the project.
Mr. Jacquet stated he has had conversations with the Development Groups
and their attorney, Mr. Mack Bernard, Mr. Arlen Dominek, Bonita Goldstein, Bruce
Leiner, Rustem Kupi, Chairman of SPRAB, and also had brief conversations with Alice
Finst. Mr. Jacquet stated some of the people were for the project and others were against
and none of the meetings that he had would have any effect on his vote today.
Mayor Glickstein asked for decorum and respect for all speakers
regardless of their point of view.
Mayor Glickstein stated the Commission received two (2) requests for
party status that the Commission must rule on and in order to obtain status as a party the
owner of property located within 500 feet of the subject property must make a written
request to the City's Planning and Zoning Department 3 or more business days prior to
the hearing that satisfies certain criteria. Decisions as to parry status shall be made by the
Commission at the hearing. Interim City Attorney has advised two parties requesting
party status Michelle Amiel and Bruce Leiner each satisfied all LDR requirements and
quasi-judicial rules for party status in that the requests were timely filed they satisfy the
City's quasi-judicial rules for content and both party addresses have been confirmed to be
within 500 feet of the subject property.
Mayor Glickstein moved to approve party status for Michelle Amiel and
Bruce Leiner, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows:
Mr. Jacquet Yes; Mr. Frankel — Yes; Mrs. Gray — Yes; Mayor Glickstein — Yes; Mrs.
Petrolia — Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
At this point, Mayor Glickstein stated the City has received several
requests for extension of time and under the City's quasi-judicial rules the Commission
may at their discretion extend the time for presentations. The applicant has requested 15
minutes, the appellants have requested 15 minutes, and Bruce Leiner has requested 15
minutes.
Mayor Glickstein moved to approve that all parties requesting additional
time be granted the same amount of time that being 15 minutes; party Michelle Amiel
will have 10 minutes as she has not requested additional time, seconded by Mr. Frankel.
Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel — Yes; Mrs. Gray — Yes;
11
01/21/14
Mayor Glickstein — Yes; Mrs. Petrolia — Yes; Mr. Jacquet — Yes. Said motion passed
with a 5 to 0 vote.
Mark McDonnell, AICP, Interim Director of Planning and Zoning, entered
the Planning and Zoning Department project file #2013 -196 into the record.
Mr. McDonnell stated this item is consideration of private appeals of the
Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's ( SPRAB) approval of the Site Plan for the
mixed use development known as Atlantic Crossing. The project is located on the north
side of Atlantic Avenue (N.E. 6t11 Avenue/Northbound Federal Highway eastward across
7th Avenue to a western boundary of Veteran's Park. Mr. McDonnell stated also included
is a parcel on the north side of 1St Street and the overall property measures 9.22 acres.
Mr. McDonnell reviewed the site plan approved on November 20, 2014 by the Site Plan
and Appearance Board ( SPRAB) and the project contains 37,642 square feet of retail
floor area, 39,434 square feet of restaurant floor area (including 1,443 square feet of
outdoor dining area), 83,462 square feet of office floor area, 343 dwelling units, and
1,076 parking spaces primarily in the structured parking.
At its meeting of December 18, 2013, SPRAB approved special action on
building setbacks with regard to the Downtown Design Guidelines and the Board also
gave final approval on the elevations that were east of 7th Avenue because they want
those to come back to them. On January 7, 2014, the appeal was scheduled before the
City Commission and it was postponed to tonight's meeting due primarily to notice and
some people who were caught out -of -town with the snowstorm up north. Mr. McDonnell
noted the primary focus of the appeal is directed towards traffic and circulation. He
stated there was a TCEA Traffic Study done by Kimley -Horn that was the limitation of
the requirement for this project. Mr. McDonnell stated the appellants hired their own
traffic engineer and that study is included with the Agenda backup. Staff recommends
Commission discretion on the appeals.
Mayor Glickstein stated where appellants consist of more than one person
as is the case tonight appellants may use or delegate their time allotment within their
group or to a third party but the total presentation time remains the same as that of an
individual appellant which is 15 minutes.
The following appellants gave brief presentations:
Mary Whittemore, 905 Bond Way,_ Delray Beach, FL 33483, provided
a letter to the Interim City Attorney and stated she would like to give her time to Susan
O'Rourke who the citizens paid to do a traffic study.
Susan E. O'Rourke, P.E., Inc., 428 SW Akron Avenue, Ste. 1A Stuart,
FL 34994 (previously worked for Kimlev -Horn in California and has been in private
practice since 1989), gave a brief PowerPoint presentation and stated she represents a
group of Delray Beach citizens to help them to better understand the traffic and
transportation with respect to the Atlantic Crossing Project. Ms. O'Rourke stated she did
12
01/21/14
not have an issue with what was in the traffic study because she recognizes that this is in
a TCEA and there are limitations on what the City asks the applicant to do. She stated
people in the community expressed concern that Atlantic Avenue builds up with traffic
and typical standard capacities are not sufficient for residential neighborhoods and cannot
handle 13,000 cars a day or 1,50011,600 cars in an hour. Ms. O'Rourke stated they took
the impact of the drawbridge and pedestrian crossings and ran a simulation (a "synchro ")
to help residents understand the traffic, transportation, and circulation within their
community.
Arlen D. Dominek 50 East Road #2G Detray Beach FL 33483 arr
Terrace read a brief statement into the record regarding the project and the traffic
study. Mr. Dominek referenced the following sections of the LDR support upholding the
objectives stated in the appeal of SPRAB's decision. Mr. Dominek urged the
Commission to vote "no" to LDR Requirements for Class V Site Plan Approval
(Comprehensive Plan - Consistency) of the Board Order and LDR Section 3.3.1(D). Mr.
Dominek stated that the City needs to adhere to the policies and objectives in the LDRs
before it grants any approval for this project and any additional development project.
Benita Goldstein, 302 N.E. 7th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483
(member of the Palm Trail HOA Board), gave a brief PowerPoint presentation and
read a brief statement regarding the proposed project and the traffic study into the record
and distributed a handout to the Commission. Ms. Goldstein read LDR Section 3.2.3 into
the record. Ms. Goldstein feels that the applicant should install a street level entrance and
exit connecting Federal Highway to 7h Avenue between Atlantic Avenue and I" Street in
addition to an entry /exit directly into the underground garage. She stated the traffic
engineer indicated that the east/west connection will assist in the circulation of traffic
relieving volume from Atlantic Avenue and also the valet queue. Ms. Goldstein stated
the new road from Federal Highway will drop out approximately 3,000 vehicles per day
and 31% of driveway volumes to and from the project resulting in less spillover onto
Atlantic Avenue. According to the traffic study, Ms. Goldstein stated Atlantic Avenue
will be over capacity by the build out of this project (2017) and is further complicated by
a drawbridge which opens twice on the hour for at least 15 minutes. She urged the
Commission to vote to modify SPRAB's passing of the Atlantic Crossing site plan
knowing the issues of traffic are a real safety concern to the residents the Commission is
sworn to protect.
Carolyn Patton, 1020 Tamarind Road, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (noted
she and Sandy Zeller are speaking), owner of her late mother's house at 65 Palm
Square in the Marina Historic District across the street from the proposed Atlantic
Crossing development. Ms. Patton stated she lived in the house for 34 years and her
parents have been residents since 1946. Ms. Patton read a brief statement into the record
and stated she filed an appeal to SPRAB's approval of this project because there was no
debate at SPRAB about protecting the historic district which is required by LDR Section
3.2.3. She stated the two blocks south of Atlantic Avenue are already at traffic capacity
according to Randal Krejcarek's own study. Ms. Patton stated all additional significant
traffic needs to be stopped from entering the district: (1) insist that there is a main
13
01/21/14
entrance /exit from Federal Highway through to 7h Avenue for Atlantic Crossing
(diverting 30 -40% of traffic from their neighborhoods, (2) cul -de -sac (hammerhead) on
Palm Square south of the entrances to Northern Trust and Deck 84 parking lots, and (3)
no through traffic across Atlantic Avenue from or to the development on S.E. 7I' Avenue.
Ms. Patton stated the traffic calming was required (condition #15) in the conditional use
grants of this project and this has to be done prior to the onset of 4 -5 years of construction
prior to groundbreaking. Ms. Patton stated the developer offered to build numerous
bump -outs and medians to slow traffic in the district but staff vetoed the hammerhead on
Palm Square and the no- through traffic on 7a` Avenue.
Allen S. Zeller, 126 Marine Way, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (stated he
has been involved in Land Use Plannins and Zoning issues representing numerous
municipalities in New Jersey for over 30 years), read a brief statement into the record
and stated if the Commission allows this plan as proposed to force thousands of vehicles
into the residential neighborhood it will adversely impact the safety, habitability, and
stability of the Marina Historic District. Mr. Zeller stated the Kimley -Horn report states
that it will be 45,000 new trips per week into this area and Atlantic Crossing has not
explained how this traffic will be absorbed and stated they claim they do not have to
because it is part of a TCEA area. Mr. Zeller stated if Atlantic Crossing has, no legal
obligation to address this problem then he urged the Commission to do something before
it is approved. He stated they are being submitted in an effort to alleviate the potential
failure of this project if they cannot get to and from and in and out of this development.
Mr. Zeller stated the appellants request that there be a requirement of full access both
ingress and egress to the site, not by a concept that requires people to travel through an
underground garage in and out to get to Federal Highway but he feels they should be able
to have access above ground. Mr. Zeller urged the City to eliminate the cross traffic
across Atlantic Avenue by use of S.E. 7'�' Avenue, install appropriate traffic calming
measures on residential streets, and reduce the potential cut - through traffic including the
hammerhead on Palm Square and restrict all construction traffic during the construction
of this period.
Jack Barrette, 1201 Seaspray Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483 (he
and his wife Kelly are active in the BPOA), read a brief statement into the record and
gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Barrette stated many of their neighbors
support the appeal and noted that the Commission is hearing and seeing substantial
competent evidence. Mr. Barrette stated residents raised their own money so they could
pay for a traffic study. He stated there are over 10,612 total daily trips associated with
the Atlantic Crossing Project. Mr. Barrette stated the City did not consider other large
projects currently approved for construction downtown (i.e. The Strand and iPic) will
also contribute to major traffic impact. He stated even without the Atlantic Crossing
Project Atlantic Avenue will be over capacity by 2017 which is when Atlantic Crossing is
scheduled for completion. Mr. Barrette stated Atlantic Avenue is also a designated
evacuation route for the barrier island and bridge openings during peak hours already
cause extensive backups and delays and the main entrance to Atlantic Crossing is 650
feet from the drawbridge. Mr. Barrette briefly reviewed traffic and parking solutions and
stated that all of the traffic must enter or exit the project from either Atlantic Avenue or
14
01/21/14
from 1St and that the developer re- distributes traffic by adding rear access from Federal
Highway to 7th Avenue. Mr. Barrette stated the proposal of the appellants for the vital
road was presented to the developer on December 20, 2013 and has so far been ignored
by the developer. Instead, Mr. Barrette stated the developer has sent their lawyers to
demand that the appellants' appeals be dismissed. Mr. Barrette stated the developer
should have reviewed the appellants' traffic study and made the reasonable changes they
outlined. Mr. Barrette stated Atlantic Crossing as it stands today will have a profound
negative and irreversible impact on the traffic flow on Atlantic Avenue degrading safety
and quality of life in the neighborhoods. Mr. Barrette urged the Commission to add a
service level road into and out of the project from Federal Highway (improving traffic
flow by 30 %).
Stanley Price, Attorney with Bilzin Sumberg (Land Use Law), 1450
Brickell Avenue, 23 "' Floor, Miami, FL 33131 (representing the applicant), entered
the following objections into the record: Mr. Price stated his request to the Interim City
Attorney was for the same amount of time afforded the appellants but not less than 15
minutes, (2) Mr. Price stated the course of conduct that that the Interim City Attorney has
indicated is different from almost every procedure he is used to practicing and practices
throughout the State of Florida and stated he has never heard of cross - examination after a
witness leaves a stand and has never heard of an applicant (one who has formulated a
project) coming before a Board and if there are 20 appeals the appellants all have 15
minutes and the applicant whose project is being reviewed gets 15 minutes or 10 minutes.
Mr. Price stated that is procedural due process that is avoided and the process the City is
using does not make any common sense at all. Mr. Price stated he represents the
developer of this project and is accompanied by Mr. Jeff Edwards, Principal of the
Edwards Company and his co- counsel Henry Handler who will be assisting him. Mr.
Price stated a through street will create chaos with the pedestrian movement through this
project; a direct right -turn in and a right -turn out off Federal Highway into this project
will address major concerns of the residents who live both to the north and south of this
project. Mr. Price stated they have agreed to the street calming measures throughout the
community. He stated the trips are reduced because of the usage and the mixture of uses
on the property. Mr. Price stated December 2012, the City Commission made a specific
finding that "this project will not have a significantly detrimental effect upon the stability
of the neighborhood within it will be located." Mr. Price stated in the instance of ras
judicata the conditional use approval was appealed by several people who are appellants
today and was withdrawn voluntarily by these same appellants. Therefore, Mr. Price
stated that makes it judicial ras judicata on the issue of traffic concurrency and traffic
impact on this area. Mr. Price stated they have agreed that with the inclusion of the
driveway on Federal Highway, they agreed to close the road on 7`h Avenue and 1st Street,
they agreed to traffic calming, and agreed to voluntarily reduce their density from a 2008
project. However, Mr. Price stated they were not afforded an opportunity to review this
traffic study which was shared by members of this council. Furthermore, Mr. Price stated
Ms. O'Rourke used the incorrect methodology in writing her report and noted that
methodology is not accepted by the City Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and by State
Statute.
15
01/21/14
Chris Hagen, Traffic Engineer with Kimle -Horn and Associates
1920 Wekiva Way 200, West Palm Beach, FL 33411, stated their study is within the
TCEA and their study followed the requirements of the traffic study within the TCEA
boundaries consistent with other projects that the Commission has approved throughout
the TCEA. Mr. Hagen stated the City, Palm Beach County, and the Florida Department
of Transportation all concurred with findings of their analysis and recommendations on
the site. Mr. Hagen stated at the intersection of N.E. 1St Street and US -1 they have agreed
to a traffic signal, agreed to traffic calming measures one Palm Square, and performed a
traffic calming for the entire Marina District. For the record, Mr. Hagen stated the
number of daily trips has been misrepresented by the appellants and clarified that the total
number of daily trips is 2,900 in comparison to the development that is there today; the
6,400 would be represented if the site were completely vacant today. Mr. Hagen stated if
you take into account the traffic that is already there it is 4,100.
Mayor Glickstein stated the following individuals will give party status
presentations; Michelle Amiel (10 minutes) and Bruce Leiner (15 minutes):
Michelle Amiel, 809 N.E. 1" Street, 43 -E, Delray Beach, FL 33483
Board member of the Parkview Manors Homeowners' Association), stated her street
is a dead -end street from 7t'' into the Intracoastal and Parkview Manors is 500 feet from
the proposed development. Ms. Amiel stated she currently has five exit routes to get out
of her area and expressed concern over safety. She stated Delray festivals are held at
Veterans Park that block off Atlantic Avenue and asked if those festivals are going to be
relocated or will they remain where they currently are. Ms. Amiel stated if these festivals
remain where they currently are they are in for some difficulties. She asked if the
developers have ever attended the holiday parades when Atlantic Avenue is closed off
and asked what will happen in those times. Ms. Amiel stated Parkview Manors is
requesting that 7th Avenue stay openn all the way to 2nd and not close it off at N.E. 1St
Street. Ms. Amiel read a brief statement into the record and urged the Commission to
come up with solutions.
At this point, Mayor Glickstein amended his ex parte communications and
stated he met with Mr. Leiner at City Hall regarding the project. Mayor Glickstein stated
what is required for party status he directed Mr. Leiner to the City Attorney's office in
that regard.
Bruce Leiner, 825 N.E. 1St Street #B, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated
this is a "de nova" procedure and new information is relevant and this is not just about
traffic. Mr. Leiner conducted a brief PowerPoint presentation and stated there are eight
(8) full accesses in and out and over 270 feet of the 600 that are actually curb cut and
approved by FDOT currently. He stated at the SPRAB meeting there were thirteen (8 on
US -1 and 5 on Atlantic) major in and out access points. He stated prior to this request the
developer had never officially asked for an in and out nor have they asked for multiples.
With regard to the grid system, Mr. Leiner stated the streets and the alleys of downtown
are critical and the grid is the lifeblood. Mr. Leiner briefly reviewed the Mizner Park site
plan which is just under 30 acres and pointed out that this is a good example of a good
16
01/21/14
grid to the central core of the development. He stated the developer has been very
forthcoming in wanting to make this a good project but they disagree on the surface road.
Mr. Leiner stated driving into an underground garage does not allow you fill access in
the grid and once there is a precedent set with closing these grids he believes there will be
big problems. Mr. Leiner stated because there are only two access points because trucks
cannot go into the underground garage. He stated most big trucks cannot turn on a right -
hand turn from one lane to another. Mr. Leiner stated every scenario shows either
encroachment into the lane to the left and then encroachment into the two lanes coming
in or encroachment going into the main project. He stated every time someone turns into
this development there is a conflict point with any vehicles in the roadway.
Mayor Glickstein declared the public comment open and noted the public
comment is limited to three (3) minutes per person; six (6) minutes if the person
represents six (6) or more persons in attendance at the meeting who have yielded their
time to the representative speaker.
Jill Schifferly, 321 Palm Trail Delray Beach FL resident of the
Palm Trail Homeowners' Association), stated Palm Trail encompasses over 110 single
family homes and multi - family building's owner occupied and rentals. Ms. Schifferly
stated this is a neighborhood populated by all ages; long -term residents as well as new
neighbors who are attracted by its unique lifestyle. Ms. Schifferly stated the concern of
the neighborhood is the size and im�act of the Atlantic Crossing project have spurred
them to request the closure of N.E. 7 Avenue and N.E. 1st Street which was approved as
a condition when the project was approved in December 2012 and the developer has
always supported the closure of N.E. 7th Avenue. She stated without mitigation of traffic
issues the pedestrian friendly/bicycle friendly nature of the neighborhood is threatened.
Ms. Schifferly stated a temporary closure is not a solution to these concerns. She stated
at a recent lecture by Mr. Andr6s Duany one key recommendation was to provide
walkability in the urban core and surrounding neighborhoods to maintain a vibrant and
healthy city.
Neal Bellinger, 1060 Homewood Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33445,
stated he has attended almost every meeting regarding this project and noted there is a
fire station 500 feet from the bridge that can take care of all the emergencies that the city
has. Mr. Bellinger stated he moved from 4th Street because of all the traffic that uses this
street as a cut - through street and feels if the entrance to 7th Avenue is blocked off at 1st
Street that would eliminate not only the Marina District problem but also the problem of
people cutting through from George Bush Boulevard to 0 Avenue. He entered a letter
into the record from Lieutenant Colonel Rodriguez, Army Veteran who runs the JROTC
Program of Delray Beach.
Ed and Cheryl McCall, 36 Palm Square, Delray Beach, FL 334452
stated it appears that everyone agrees what needs to be done and it is in the City's hands
to take this forward and get this done.
17
01/21/14
Jane Rankin, One East Broward Boulevard, Suite #1600, Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33301 (represents Burt Randleman and his companies), entered a
letter into the record from Mr. Handleman.
Fran Marincola, 1138 S. Vista Del Mar, Delray Beach, FL 33483,
briefly discussed the project and stated the Commission has to go by the law.
Lee Harrison, owner of Blue Anchor British Pub) directly opposite
this new development, thanked the Commission and the Planners who spent so much
time improving and refining this development to the plans. Mr. Harrison stated this is a
beautiful development and feels it will be the jewel of Delray Beach.
Dr. Josh Smith, 3616 Avenue De Gien, Delray Beach, FL 33445, stated
this project will have an impact on more than just the surrounding areas. Dr. Smith
briefly spoke about unemployment and stated they will not prevent high levels of
unemployment of citizens living in the highest unemployment areas of the city unless
large scale developers are placed in a position and given the opportunity to significantly
reduce unemployment. He stated extremely high unemployment concerns would trump
traffic concerns. Dr. Smith urged the Commission to approve the project enhancing the
possibility of the provision of jobs to the most economically challenged citizens in the
city. In addition, Dr. Smith feels the project will increase attractiveness and produce a
significant increase in the City's tax base.
Joe Silk, 1118 N.W. 5"' Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, supports the
project and feels this will be a huge benefit to the people who live in city. Mr. Silk stated
the developer has been very sensitive to the needs of everyone's concerns.
Joseph Sanches, Executive Director of Dwight Stephenson
Construction, of 401 W. Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated they are
committed to work with local firms to make sure they have opportunities for a contract
on this project and making sure that local Delray Beach residents have an opportunity for
employment. Mr. Sanches urged the Commission to support this project.
Dinah Stephenson, 4785 Tree Fern Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33445
(wife of Dwight Stephenson), urged the Commission to approve this project for their
company and other local companies and residents of Delray Beach.
Dwayne Randolph, 1191 N. Federal Highway, Delray Beach, FL (co-
owner of Randolph and Dewdney Construction and born and raised in Delray
Beach ), supports the Atlantic Crossing Project because of the diverse mix of uses that it
is going to bring to the downtown and it will help strengthen Delray's tax base. Mr.
Randolph stated in addition to its 600 permanent jobs that this project would also create
in excess of 1,000 construction jobs local firms would have the opportunity to provide
services for. Mr. Randolph stated he fully supports the Atlantic Crossing Project.
Tina Hutchinson, owner of J &J Seafood on East Atlantic Avenue
18
01/21/14
(across from the proposed project), supports the Atlantic Crossing Project and stated it
will bring growth to the community and the developer has been working with the
communities to help with the traffic solutions.
Brad Winney, 1515 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444
(lived in Delray Beach since 2002), stated he has had the pleasure of living in the Los
Angeles area, the Marina District in San Francisco, and Manhattan. Mr. Winney stated
hopefully the city can have a great project that brings jobs into the community without
sacrificing the livelihood and the style of the community.
Gary Goldfarb,__ 502_ -506 East Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, FL
33483, stated this project has been scrutinized for approximately seven (7) years and
urged the Commission to support it.
3483, stated the
developer has agreed to do many things to alleviate traffic by closing 7' Avenue (north)
and has done many things to help the people who live in the Marina District. Mr.
Humanik stated City staff is saying that 7th Avenue should be closed temporarily and
feels the entire traffic issue should be addressed.
Serena Cummins, 4892 Palmview Circle, Delray Beach, FL 33445,
supports developing the area but expressed concern over what the impact will be on
Veterans Park and the traffic flow.
Joann Peart 107 N.W. 9th Street Delray Beach FL 33444 s eakin
on behalf of the Delray-Beach Preservation Trust), urged the Commission to protect
those neighborhoods, traffic patterns, and residents who have been living downtown for
years and already support downtown. Mrs. Peart suggested that there be a cul -de -sac on
7`h and Palm Square could help raise the property values and help those neighborhoods
greatly.
Bob Currie, 72 South Ocean Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33483,
stated he came to Delray Beach 45 years ago and the downtown was in bad shape. Mr.
Currie stated the developers have done an extraordinary job with this project. Mr. Currie
stated this is the heart of the downtown and he urged the Commission to support it.
Andv Katz, 220 South Ocean Boulevard, Delrav Beach, FL 33483,
expressed concerns with the design of this project. Mr. Katz thanked the developer for
addressing some of the BPOA's concerns; however, the issue that still remains
unresolved is entry and exit points for the project. Mr. Katz stated the BPOA and others
have consistently requested full use of Federal Highway. Mr. Katz stated this project as
planned is not located within a full grid system of streets. He stated having as many
options as possible to the west is very critical (i.e. Federal Highway). Mr. Katz urged the
Commission to not forget the street grid limitations that are present at this location at
Atlantic Avenue and the Intracoastal.
19
01/21/14
Gary Shusas, 120 South Ocean Boulevard 41 -E, Delray Beach, FL
33483 (resident of Delray Beach since 2002), stated he would like to see a manageable
project in this location and feels that everyone wants to see jobs particularly in the
minority community. Mr. Shusas stated Mizner Park works because there are four (4)
exits off Federal Highway and urged the Commission to be considerate of the traffic.
Justena Boughton, 525 East Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483
(owner /operator of The Colony Hotel and resident since 1935), urged the developer to
build what he wants between Federal Highway and 7 Avenue and give from 7th Avenue
to the Intracoastal to the City for a beautiful park.
Ryan Boylston, 135 East Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483
(Del -Ida resident, owner of two businesses downtown,_ and member of the DDA and
Pineapple Grove Board), stated Delray Beach is a thriving min -metro town and stated
with regard to traffic and parking it will get worse because that comes with it. Mr.
Boylston stated downtowns are supposed to be built around people not built around cars.
He briefly discussed the density and the mixed use of the project. Mr. Boylston urged the
Commission to not let the personal preference of some members of the community or a
traffic study that was in an area that does not require a traffic study to stop this tonight
and urged the Commission to move forward with this project.
Joan McGrath, 86 MacFarlane Drive, Delray Beach, FL 33483, loves
the project but feels people need to be mindful of parking for people who use the park for
exercise, children, etc. She urged the Commission to be mindful of trying to do the
entrances and exits on Federal Highway and noted that most of the time she has to go the
bypass to get out of the city. Ms. McGrath referenced an article in the Sun - Sentinel dated
January 18, 2014 entitled Delray gets advice on importance of preparing for storms and
floods. She stated there were comments made regarding Mizner Park and noted all of the
parking is above ground. Ms. McGrath stated with the proposed parking underground
with this project next to the Intracoastal and the potential floodingwith the next hurricane
we have. Ms. McGrath stated the article states the "sea -level projections will rise by 3 -7
inches by 2030 and 9 -24 inches by 2060 for Delray that means the ground level site
where the Atlantic Crossing project is could be under water within 50 years."
Dr. Victor Kirson D.D.S. 2050 Alta Meadows Lane #2110 Delray
Beach, FL 33444 (President of the Board of Directors of Tierra Verde at Delray
Beach and Member of the Alliance), stated he has followed this project from the first
meeting until now and has been obtaining 350 signatures all over the city and very few of
them mind the project. Dr. Kirson stated if 4 -6 Police officers can protect the
surrounding communities and the CRA can pay for it and he urged the Commission to get
started with this project.
Bill Plum, 2310 S.W. 23"] Cranbrook Drive, Boynton Beacb, FL
33436, stated during his career he was in the real estate business and had the opportunity
to build a building (101 S. E. 6`h Avenue) which he operated for approximately 36 years
and also commented about the bank building on Linton Boulevard. Mr. Plum stated he
20
01/21/14
wanted to be part of the growth in Delray Beach and noted he was one of the founders of
the Delray Beach Drug Abuse Foundation which is in operation on Swinton Avenue in
Delray Beach.
Zack ? (last name unknown), 32 S.E. 2 "d Avenue, Delray Beach, FL
33444 (resident for 2 years), stated this project will bring economic prosperity, jobs,
more tourism. He stated one thing that has been very consistent is the developer's
commitment to the residents and how they have continued to evolve the project and meet
the needs of the community. In addition, he feels this project fits into the goals of 2017
and urged the Commission to approve it.
Maraery Johnson, 46 Marine Way, DeIrav Beach, FL 33483 (resident
for 22 years), stated this project needs a full ingress /egress not into an underground
parking garage. Ms. Johnson stated her dining room floods every time the tide comes up
and noted the developer has to dedicate the full street from Federal Highway not going
underground because the garage will be flooded. Ms. Johnson stated the ingress /egress
should be from Federal Highway not into a garage and most projects of this size have to
have dedicated green space but there is none in this project.
James Quillian, 925 S.E. 2 "d Avenue Delray Beach FL 33483
(Osceola Park), expressed concern over the traffic and how it affects the quality of the
neighborhood. Mr. Quillian stated this is a major thoroughfare and traffic will be an
issue and noted some residents are fearful that if there are problems with the project it
will take a long time to resolve and who will be responsible in the end.
Kevin_ Homer, 125 S.W. 12th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483,
commented about an article in the Sun - Sentinel yesterday and stated there are two sides
to this challenge all based around traffic. Mr. Homer compared this to Obama Care and
stated it seems that there are kinks that need to be worked out such as traffic, safety, and
liability before this project is approved. He urged the Commission to support this project
but only after addressing these issues.
Vin Nolan, Economic Development Director for the City of Delray
Beach, encouraged the Commission to support this project and stated he has to represent
on behalf of the Commission the ability to know that if a decision is made that it is not
subsequently undone. Mr. Nolan urged the Commission to reflect on that particular
aspect with respect to their decision making process as it represents future growth and
development in Delray Beach.
Charles Dorteh, 112 S.E. 7th Avenue #2, Delray Beach, FL 33483,
emphasized that predictability is important only if it is correct.
The Interim City Attorney and Mayor Glickstein informed Mr. Dortch that
he is an appellant and should not be speaking at this time.
21
01/21/14
Torrey Everett, 50 East Road 93A, Delray Beach, FL 33483,
commented about predictability and stated the Commission has the opportunity to change
their minds about a decision that was made in the past. Mr. Everett stated if the
Commission does not do this and it turns out the residents in the area are correct about
the traffic problems there will be no way to fix it.
There being no one else from the public who wished to address the
Commission regarding this item, the public hearing was closed.
At this point, Mayor Glickstein stated the following individuals will give
cross - examination which is limited to two (2) minutes per witness and cross - examination
will follow the same order as the presentations which will bestaff followed by appellants,
applicant, and those granted party status.
Mr. McDonnell stated staff has no cross - examination.
The following appellants gave brief cross - examinations:
Mr. Zeller stated one of the primary issues was that the applicant's
attorney was willing to do all of the remedial actions and take on these remedial steps and
feels cross - examination is appropriate for whomever it was that decided that they would
not take these remedial steps such as a permanent closure of Palm Trail, putting in the
hammerhead on Palm Square and other traffic calming devices that the applicant, their
attorney, and their engineers said that they were willing to do. Mr. Zeller stated he would
like to know whose decision it was and went into it and he would like to explore that as
to the credibility or viability of it.
Mayor Gliekstein emphasized the Commission will adhere to the rules and
explained that Mr. Zeller's two minutes is up but he has the opportunity to bring up his
concern up during rebuttal.
Mr. Dominek stated he had no cross - examination.
Mr. and Mrs. Barrette stated they had no cross - examination.
Ms. Whittemore stated she had no cross - examination.
Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein stated they had no cross - examination.
Mr. Price (Attorney representing the Applicant) asked for clarification that
if he has a series of questions and the response take two (2) minutes then his series of
questions is over. Mayor Glickstein stated Mr. Price is correct. For the record, Mr. Price
stated he objects to the procedures and feels it is a denial of due process that he is not
afforded the right to properly cross - examine witnesses who have testified in front of the
City Commission.
22
01/21/14
Mayor Glickstein stated for party status there are Mrs. Amiel and Mr.
Leiner and asked them if they wish to give any cross - examination:
Bruce Leiner stated if the project is approved with just the underground
and no street level access this entire project is dependent upon this one street in and out.
Mr. Leiner stated the project by the developer's study is going to have 4 million cars per
year. He asked what the fix is if the street north is closed and the cars cannot get out by
making a left hand turn.
After brief discussion between the Interim City Attorney and the
Commission, Mayor Glickstein stated it is important that the Commission stays within
the City's rules and the rules have not changed relative to cross - examination from when
the project application was submitted or any time thereafter so everybody is operating on
the same rule. Mayor Glickstein stated the Commission can adjust for the procedural
explanations before the time starts but then after that they are limited to the two (2)
minutes. It was the consensus of the Commission to adjust for the procedural
explanations before the time starts but then after that persons speaking are limited to the
two (2) minutes.
examination.
At this point, Mayor Glickstein asked staff if they have any cross-
Mr. McDonnell stated staff has no cross - examination.
The following Appellants gave the following cross - examination:
Mr. Zeller asked questions of Mr. McDonnell.
Mr. Price asked questions of staff.
Mr. Leiner asked three questions and clarified the first question is for staff
and his second and third question are for the applicant.
At this point, Mayor Glickstein stated at this time the City will allow for
rebuttal which is limited to two (2) minutes for each party and the same order of the
presentations which will be staff, the appellants, the applicant, and those granted party
status.
Mr. McDonnell stated he had no rebuttal.
Ms. Whittemore stated she had no rebuttal.
Ms. O'Rourke gave a brief rebuttal.
Mr. Dominek stated he had no rebuttal.
23
01/21/14
Jordan and Benita Goldstein stated they had no rebuttal.
Mayor Glickstein asked Mr. Dortch, Ms. Patton, Mr. Smith and Ms. Willis
and Mr. Zeller if they had any rebuttal.
Mr. Zeller gave a brief rebuttal.
At this point, it was the consensus of the Commission to allow discussion
with staff now and get answers from the cross - examination and then have the rebuttals.
Mayor Glickstein asked questions of staff relative to Mr. Zeller's
questions. Mr. Zeller asked if there was a traffic study done by staff. Mayor Glickstein
asked if there has ever been a TCEA re- evaluation at any time. Mr. Donnell stated this
was done five (5) years ago and due to update this year. Mayor Glickstein stated there
was a question whether the 2012 project different and that is a staff question combined
with a legal question concerning res judicata. Mayor Glickstein stated this Commission
has not addressed the site plan; it has only addressed conditional use for height and
density. For the record, the Interim City Attorney stated the conditional use was
approved by the City Commission in 2012; there is a prior site plan approval for this
project approved in 2009 and she clarified for the public that this is not what staff is
referring to.
Mr. McDonnell stated the conditional use is for the same project but just
dealt with height and density not with the site plan.
Mayor Glickstein stated the applicant has agreed to all the conditions in
the SPRAB approval and the applicant is questioning why staff is not supporting certain
conditions that were approved by SPRAB; which ones are they and why is staff not
supporting them. Mr. McDonnell stated the one issue staff has is the permanent closure
of N.E. 7th Avenue and the City wanted to do this on a trial basis as like other street
closures.
Randal Krejcarek, Director of Environmental Services, stated the only
thing that staff does not support is the closure of N.E. 7th Avenue (traffic diversion) at 1St
Street; staff supports the traffic calming measures on Palm Square (Marina District) not
closure. Mr. Krejcarek stated this means staff works with the neighborhood to come up
with a calming measure.
Mayor Glickstein stated he had heard the term "hammerhead" and asked if
that was part of any SPRAB approval. Mr. Krejcarek stated Palm Square had to do with
traffic calming. Mayor Glickstein commented about condition 45. Mr. Krejcarek stated
the applicant has come up with several designs to try and see if a hammerhead would fit
at the location that the appellant wanted it to be. However, Mr. Krejcarek stated it does
not work because they cannot get the delivery trucks in for the restaurants that have a
delivery coming off Palm Square into Deck 84 restaurant and there is no right -of -way.
Mr. Krejcarek stated if a hammerhead is put here it would be closing the driveway of the
24
01/21/14
first resident south of the Deck 84 parking lot. Mr. Krejcarek stated staff also suggested
other traffic calming measures that would work and accomplish the same thing without
actually closing and diverting traffic.
Mayor Glickstein asked the questions that the applicants have of staff.
Mr. Krejcarek stated the Kimley -Horn traffic study did conform to the
TCEA study but everything else beyond that is not required so it is not pertinent to the
TCEA area. Mr. Krejcarek stated certain requirements that have to be performed have to
be provided in a statement if you are in the TCEA area and the Kimley -Horn study
provided that and the O'Rourke traffic study confirmed that. Mr. Krejcarek stated the
study does not change staffs position on whether they support or do not support the
project.
Mayor Glickstein stated with regard to Mr. Leiner's question that if
Federal Highway is blocked forever with these plans there is one way in and one way out
what do we do if it does not work and is there a backup plan. Mr. Krejcarek stated the
intersection of Atlantic Avenue and N.E. 7tt' Avenue will work and the intersection of
N.E. 1St Street and N.E. 7`t' Avenue there could be a potential issue because of the closure
of 7t''. Mr. Krejcarek recommends that if there is an issue there the City needs to consider
looking at opening it up and utilizing the grid system.
The Interim City Attorney stated Mr. Leiner expressed a concern with the
existing garage and its limited access to the public; 178 spaces that are reserved for
residential and asked how the public would then have access to that garage.
Don DeVere 495 S. High Street Ste. #150, Edwards Atlantic Avenue,
LLC, Columbus, Ohio 43215, stated the number of reserved spaces in the garage is
dictated by City code (one space be reserved per residential unit). He hopes there is
flexibility to that because they are required to unbundle their parking so that residents that
do not want a parking space are not forced to pay for it and those spaces can be put back
into circulation.. Interim City Attorney stated the second part of the question is what if
the valet backs up.
Rudy Tourvell, 495 S. High Street Ste. #1150, Edwards Atlantic
Avenue, LLC, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (Consultant for the Developer; 22 years valet
and parking experience), stated as an alternate valet stand in the west garage they have
created a valet staging area near the elevator core in the staircase which provides a
staging area for approximately six (6) vehicles with only taking up two (2) parking spaces
currently. Mr. Tourvell stated this will allow people to come into the west garage and
valet park there creating a total of 24 cars in the staging area. Mr. Tourvell stated the
benefit of the plan is that they will be able to make the cars off the rotary, it is easily
accessible to the north and the west, close to the elevator banks and the staircases, easily
accessible to the establishments up above, and the cars will be able to exit onto Federal
Highway from the garage.
25
01/21/14
Mayor Glickstein stated this concludes all cross - examinations and now the
following rebuttals will be heard:
Mr. McDonnell stated he had no rebuttal.
Ms. Whittemore stated she had no rebuttal.
Ms. O'Rourke stated if the fallback plan is to route the traffic out onto 7th
Avenue to the north they do not see that as an acceptable fallback plan. She stated the
west garage has limited efficiency related to the entire plan because of its limited access
through multi -users on the site.
Mr. Dominek stated he had no rebuttal.
Mr. Jordan and Benita Goldstein stated they had no rebuttal.
Mr. Zeller stated Policy C -3.5 states that "The City should monitor the
development in the TCEA annually to assess the land use mix." Mr. Zeller stated Mr.
McDonnell indicated that has not been done in five (5) years and stated that is a problem.
Mr. Zeller stated they raised in their appeal that there be a limit for cross - traffic on 7th
across Atlantic Avenue onto S.E. 7`h to and from and noted it should be done. Mr. Zeller
stated with regard to the truck traffic not being able to turn around on Palm Square, he
stated the truck traffic is not supposed to go down Palm Square (can go into the parking
for Northern Trust and Deck 84) to S.E. 1" or beyond on any other streets because there
is already signage for that. Mr. Zeller stated the condition proposed by SPRAB says it
may include a cul -de -sac beginning at the intersection with Atlantic Avenue and it needs
to be considered because that is a traffic calming device that has been suggested that has
been continually agreed to by the applicant.
Mr. Barrette stated the idea that City staff has not reviewed the report that
the appellants submitted as something that was irrelevant because this is TCEA area. Mr.
Barrette stated that is an obligation that is relieved of the developer; and the developer is
allowed to do a minimal study of only a certain type that Kimley -Horn did and although
they agree with the study it is an incomplete study. Mr. Barrette stated that does not
relieve the City of that obligation and he noted that the City should have done a study and
consequently the appellants paid for their own study to be done.
Mr. Price entered a letter from FDOT indicating the approval of right -turn
in right -turn out from US -1 and the procedures given to him per Interim City Attorney as
to governing of this hearing. Mr. Price stated in order for someone who goes through a
conditional use process there is a requirement that you cannot get to SPRAB unless the
site plan that is being submitted to SPRAB is in substantial conformity to the Master Plan
that was given as part of the conditional use. He feels that comparing this to 2008/2009
approval is inappropriate and the res judicata applies to the December 2012 matter.
Ms. Amiel stated she had no rebuttal.
26
01/21/14
Mr. Leiner stated staff has been involved in this process for 8 -10 years and
feels staff has done a remarkable job. Secondly, Mr. Leiner stated the developer has done
an outstanding job of trying to cooperate and meet everyone's needs. He stated the only
disagreement currently is whether the City should have a surface road to complete the
grid. Mr. Leiner stated it is possible that the in and out underground garage will actually
solve the problems of this project. However, Mr. Leiner expressed concern that if it does
work at the turn they will have to open the road on 7t''. He stated there are two or three
other methods they proposed that could help solve the problem and soften the Palm Trail
problem. Mr. Leiner stated the key is being able to access 300 or more spaces in that lot
because of the shared parking arrangement if there is only access to 150 it is not going to
function the way the City needs it to in order to make it work; none of the cars coming
off Federal Highway can get to the center core or to valet and there is no inter -
connectivity. Mr. Leiner stated this decision is forever and feels the City really needs this
project.
At this point, Mayor Glickstein stated this concludes all rebuttals.
Mayor Glickstein read his credentials into the record and stated while
mixed use projects are a great fit for urban areas such as downtown Delray they come
with many problems associated with a small city such as traffic, noise, crime, garbage,
loading, unloading, deliveries, parking, and the competing agendas among different
users; businesses wanting bustling activity at all hours and residents wanting some
semblance of quiet. Mayor Glickstein stated the larger the project the more intense the
focus should be on internal logistics and external impacts. He continued to read a brief
statement into the record and stated he commends the developers for making adjustments
to the project plans he feels they have done a great job with integrating a portfolio of
uses. Mayor Glickstein commented on an aerial photo depicting the existing property
where there are 13 different entry and exit points; eight of which are on Federal Highway
alone for a combined intensity that is a fraction of what is proposed. Mayor Glickstein
stated the combination of the substantial competent evidence presented by the appellants
including their traffic expert and from his own experience does not allow him to support
the plan in its current form. He stated there are two primary entry /exit points both
directed at these adjacent neighborhoods for a project geometrically larger and intense
than the existing development. Mayor Glickstein stated Mizner Park is a great example
of a large mixed -use project in a downtown environment that has similar demographics.
He stated although Mizner Park is much larger than this project the development intensity
is not; 530,000 total square feet at Atlantic Crossing compares to 503,000 square feet of
commercial space at Mizner Park (does not include 270 dwelling units at Mizner).
However, Mayor Glickstein stated there are 13 access and exit points and the adjacent
neighborhood impacts were minimized by an integrated grid. He stated if traffic backed
up in any one place there were multiple other options to utilize and it is not the case with
Atlantic Crossing. Mayor Glickstein stated the entrance off US -1 combined with a
secondary access of N.E. 7a' Avenue would alleviate a large amount of traffic into
adjacent neighborhoods and also provide ample options for this chaotic confluence of
traffic and vehicles to work. He does not feel this is the case with the current proposal
and does not understand the reluctance of the development team to incorporate that
27
01/21/14
access from Federal Highway. He stated the Commission saw a transact of Atlantic
Avenue last week which showed with the exception of the ocean the Intracoastal basin
and adjacent property to the west is the lowest elevation in the city. Mayor Glickstein
stated based on the substantial competent evidence represented by the appellants
including the traffic expert and his own experience does not allow him to support the plan
in its current form. For the record, Mayor Glickstein cited LDR Section 3.2.3(D) in
determining the modification to traffic circulation proposed by the current site plan would
be detrimental to the neighborhoods north, south, east of the subject property and may
result in the degradation of those neighborhoods which comprise approximately 30% of
the taxable property value in the city. Mayor Glickstein also cited LDR Sections
3.2.3(1-1) and 3.2.3(I) in his vote to deny approval of the site plan based on how traffic
volumes and circulation patterns both within the proposed site plan and the negative
impacts on adjacent areas may result in negative impacts to the safety, habitability, and
stability of the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Mayor Glickstein stated he is pro -
development, however, he stated as Mayor his concerns are deeper than construction jobs
that will come and go and the long -term effects of a site plan that he sees as deeply
flawed.
Mrs. Petrolia stated change is needed on this site and agrees that the
developer has been completely amenable to so many of the requests that have been made.
She does not feel that the City can make a mistake on this and feels this is an important
decision that will affect the city forever. Mrs. Petrolia expressed concern over safety and
getting EMS /fire trucks to areas where people are living and playing with one access
point. She also expressed concern over the traffic flow and although there are two ways
in and out if something happens to one of those areas there will be issues. Mrs. Petrolia
stated the main flow of traffic is Federal Highway not Atlantic Avenue. She stated it is
troubling to her that there would be no access road on that center portion. Mrs. Petrolia
stated the grid system (on the inside) has been eliminated and the city is relying on the
neighboring communities to use their grid system for this to function as it is and feels this
is not acceptable. Mrs. Petrolia concurred with comments expressed by Mayor Glickstein
with respect to LDR Section 3.2.3(D), 3.2.3(H) and 3.2.3(I). Mrs. Petrolia stated the
strong points in supporting the project are the jobs and the fact that this would be a great
location to redevelop but it does not outweigh doing something that the Commission
cannot go backwards on. She stated this project can still be done without eliminating the
jobs and the development with tweaking. Mrs. Petrolia stated The Strand project did not
change a grid and nor did Sofa 41 and #2; this project is changing the City's grid and the
City is asking for the north, south, and the east community and everything around it to
adjust for the changing of that one piece of property. Mrs. Petrolia stated the surface road
is the heart of this city and is also the heart of this project. She believes this can be done
if we bring in the east to west road to alleviate this traffic and it should have not been
eliminated when they were originally discussed because the flow of the traffic is on
Federal Highway.
Mr. Jacquet stated in 2012 he saw this project and at that time it was a
conditional use for the density and height and he opposed it because at that time he felt
the size and the density was not appropriate at that time. Mr. Jacquet stated res judicata
28
01/21/14
(meaning that's done) and noted that was the decision the Commission made at that time
and stated he voted against it. Mr. Jacquet stated he has talked to people on both sides of
the issue and noted the concern mostly is traffic, site movability and can people flow
through the grid. Mr. Jacquet stated N.E. 7fl' Avenue is being closed in response to
protect the neighborhoods and the City is saying that we need to create an entrance on
Federal Highway to maintain the grid. He stated the grid is there and City is choosing to
close it because the neighbors asked for it to be closed. Mr. Jacquet stated with respect to
the valet there are concerns about movability, getting around the site, and whether the
parking backs up into Atlantic Avenue. He stated the second valet queue is an attempt to
help distribute some of that and the ingress /egress on Federal Highway is an attempt to
alleviate some of that. Mr. Jacquet stated this is the largest project in the city and it is an
opportunity to create jobs and bring something that everyone can be proud of on that site.
Mr. Jacquet stated he was not in support of the height and density; he feels the developer
has worked a lot with the communities and the neighbors have worked a lot and paid for
their own traffic study. Mr. Jacquet stated he supports this project moving forward.
Mr. Frankel moved to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m., seconded by
Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray — Yes; Mayor
Glickstein — Yes; Mrs. Petrolia — Yes; Mr. Jacquet — Yes; Mr. Frankel — Yes. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
Mr. Frankel stated he appreciates everyone coming out this evening. Mr.
Frankel stated many of the comments made tonight he cannot consider because this is on
an appeal of a decision made by SPRAB that previously approved certain things. He
stated there are three (3) elements that the Commission has to consider in malting their
decision which has been provided by the Interim City Attorney. Those three elements
are: (1) Did the local government provided the parties procedural due process (i.e. notice
and an opportunity to be heard, (2) Whether the local government observed essential
requirements of law, and (3) Whether the local government decision is based on
substantial competent evidence; staff testimony, the applicant's testimony, expert witness
testimony and testimony of neighbors regarding the facts to the extent that it is relevant to
the issues to be decided in support of maps, photos, and other relevant information. Mr.
Frankel stated element #1 and #2 have been met and element #3. Mr. Frankel stated his
neighborhood will be affected and at a previous hearing the President of the HOA came
out and stated unanimously his community did support this although he did not take part
in the polling of the community. Mr. Frankel stated Mr. Jim Smith gave S.A.F.E.'s
approval to the project. Mr. Frankel stated according to the comments from the
appellants with their study and staff comments he does not believe there is a consensus
and feels there needs to be testimony and evidence that goes over the burden of the
SPRAB's decision. For the record, Mr. Frankel stated there are 45 conditions attached
and are agreed upon by the developer so based on the testimony and evidence he does not
feel it is at the level to overturn the previous decision by SPRAB. Therefore, Mr. Frankel
stated he does not support the appeal.
Mr. Jacquet stated he wants to distinguish when he speaks as an attorney
and when he speaks as an individual. Mr. Jacquet stated based on the Interim City
29
01/21/14
Attorney has told the Commission on what the Commission can consider with this appeal
he has to stand by those laws. Mr. Jacquet stated he feels he has to stand by the three
elements as stated by Commissioner Frankel and with respect to LDR Section 3.2.3(H)
he believes modifications have been made.
Mrs. Gray thanked everyone for coming out tonight and stated the
Commission has to follow the law. She stated the infrastructure and roads are already in
place and noted the public came out to speak with Worthing Place and people had the
same issues with the traffic. Mrs. Gray stated she voted on this project approximately
one year ago because the developer lowered the density and the height but pointed out the
Commission is here to consider the site plan. She stated the developer mentioned that
they would close the road north of N.E. 1" Street and inquired whether or not the traffic
calming devices are in place. Mr. Krejcarek stated what was approved with the
conditional use was Palm Square only. Mr. Krejcarek explained that they are asking for
the right -in right -out only at S.E. 7th Avenue; he stated if that left turn is prohibited this
way they will have to go all the way to Federal Highway go down Federal and cross back
again to get back into their neighborhood. Mr. Krejcarek explained where the residents
want Palm Square closed. Mrs. Gray asked when construction starts what is going to
happen to the neighborhoods when trucks and other vehicles are coming to the
community. Mr. Krejcarek stated the way it stands right, now if it was to move forward
as it is currently being proposed N.E. 7th Avenue at 1St would be temporarily closed. He
stated N.E. 1St and S.E. 1St Street are the two one -way pairs that parallel Atlantic Avenue
and their purpose is to relieve traffic on Atlantic Avenue and noted this was not
mentioned at all to him; S.E. 1St Street will be two -way when the Federal Highway
project is completed which will be completed before this project is anticipated to be
completed. Mrs. Gray stated FDOT has supported the ingress /egress and asked if there is
another entranceway to the garage. Mr. Krejcarek stated there is an entrance off of S.E.
7 1 Avenue (west side of 7th) between Atlantic Avenue and N.E. 1St
Mrs. Gray asked if the road they want to open off Federal Highway can be
done. The Interim City Attorney stated the project before the Commission will not have
that road in there and the Commission has to review the project as it was proposed. Mrs.
Gray stated she would like to see some of the measures put in place that some of the
residents have asked for as far the temporary closure of N.E. 7t Avenue. Mrs. Gray
stated she would like for staff to look into some type of planning to see if the
hammerheads actually work in Palm Square and would like to see the roundabouts prior
to the C.O. being issued. She asked if the developer agrees with this. Mr. Price stated
the additional traffic calming at Palm Square and the 45 conditions the developer agrees
to. Mrs. Gray stated after listening to both sides for this project the biggest issue is
coming off Federal Highway but going into the garage and coming right out of the garage
helps alleviates some of the traffic. Mrs. Gray stated she supports the project tonight as it
is presented with those conditions welcoming the jobs and additional revenue to the tax
base.
Mayor Glickstein stated with respect to the conditions of approval there
are some limitations primarily based on the substantial competent evidence criteria and
30
01/21/14
feels that in any court of law would be acknowledged as an expert witness and the
conclusions in that report rise to substantial competent evidence. Mayor Glickstein asked
Mr. Krejcarek where his conclusion comes from regarding his comment that he does not
think there is going to be a problem at Atlantic Avenue and S.E. 7th but there will be a
problem at 1St and 7d'. Mr. Krejcarek stated he did not see that as an issue based on the
net increase in volume there is more than enough capacity to handle, it right now.
Mayor Glickstein stated if traffic is alleviated from Atlantic and 1" then
the traffic calming and a road closure becomes less important. Mayor Glickstein stated it
is not just the internal logistics that he was speaking of which he does not believe work
on this site plan in the best of times. For example, Mayor Glickstein stated in August
(off - season) there will be problems with this site plan. Mayor Glickstein stated he does
not understand why there has not been insistence on a backup plan. He commented about
Mr. Nolan's comments about predictability and everyone wants predictability and the
anxiety about how the community and neighborhoods are changing the codes that are
being worked on will go a long way to eliminating that. Mayor Glickstein stated the
conditional use that was approved was for density and height only; there was no site plan
approval. Mr. Krejcarek stated one of the concerns staff had with the east/west road that
was proposed was it did not line up with either the alley behind the Colony or with the
driveway. Mi. Krejcarek stated staff's biggest concern was that there are going to be cars
cutting across Federal Highway going against the traffic and by creating that roadway he
sees a safety issue in cars going the wrong way on Federal Highway. Mayor Glickstein
stated there is very little alignment with the access points to the various developments on
Federal Highway. Mr. Krejcarek stated this is true with driveways but with respect to
roads it is not because it would be considered an intersection.
Mrs. Petrolia stated she concurs with Mayor Glickstein's position about
this being entirely legal for the Commission to consider this and feels the Commission
had a confident person who was making a decision in bringing their information and is
something that the Commission could base its decision on.
Mr. Jacquet stated he trusts the legal opinion of the Interim City Attorney
and also respects Mr. Krejcarek's opinion and expertise.
The Interim City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the
Commission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy
and made an official part of the minutes).
Mr. Frankel moved to deny the private appeals of SPRAB's action on the
Class V Site Plan of Atlantic Crossing based on the Board Order (upholds SPRAB's
approval of the project) subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit C -E, seconded by Mr.
Jacquet. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Glickstein — No; Mrs.
Petrolia — No; Mr. Jacquet — Yes; Mr. Frankel — Yes; Mrs. Gray — Yes. Said motion to
DENY the appeal was approved with a 3 to 2 vote, Mayor Glickstein and Commissioner
Petrolia dissenting.
31
01/21/14
9.C. DISCUSSION REGARDING NAMING OF STREET REQUEST:_
Consider a request from Commissioner Al Jacquet regarding the renaming or adding to
the name of a street.
Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated staff presented
to the Commission a policy to address naming City facilities. Mrs. Butler stated at that
time the City Commission gave direction that they did not wish to change the policy that
had been adopted by prior Commissions in 1994 that said that they no longer wanted to
name streets after individuals. In 1996, Mrs. Butler stated there was also a policy at the
Commission level that they did not want to continue the processes doing dual names to
cities. She stated staff has not brought this back to the Commission and noted it would
have to go before the Planning and Zoning Board. Mrs. Butler stated Commissioner
Jacquet has asked for either S.E. 2nd Avenue or S.E. 3 Avenue to be dual named for
Toussaint L'Ouverture.
Mayor Glickstein stated he supports a policy first and also supports the
specific request as well.
Mr. Jacquet stated he specifically requested this street change and by
allowing the dual name it acknowledges that neighborhood and community.
After brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that Mrs.
Butler draft a policy to bring back before the Planning and Zoning Board and staff will
bring back to a future Commission meeting.
9.D. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: Purchase award to Otto
Environmental Systems in the amount of $60,000.00 for the purchase of hot - stamped,
garbage carts, lids and wheels to be ordered "as- needed ". The recommendation for award
is in compliance with Ordinance No. 29 -13, Chapter 36, "Acquisition of Goods and
Services and Disposal of City Property ", Section 36.02(C) "Direct Acquisition Method ",
(6) "Sole Source and City Standard ", (b) "City Standard ". Funding is available from 433-
3711 -534 -49.35 (Sanitation Fund: Other Current Charges /Cart Renewal & Replacement).
Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated this item is a
request for the Commission to approve a Purchase Award for $60,000 for the purchase of
hot - stamped garbage carts, lids and wheels to be ordered as needed from Otto
Environmental Systems as the product supplier. The blanket purchase order will cover a
period of October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014. Mrs. Butler stated in consulting
with the Interim City Attorney based on the City's ordinance governing the Purchasing
policies that what the City has with its carts at this time is a City standard. She stated the
City has to service its current customers. Mrs. Butler stated she took this over from the
Finance Department and explained that this will be bid and there are five (5) national
companies that provide these carts. The City has specified the particular actual sizes and
how the cart looks and the type of plastic that the City has used. Mrs. Butler stated since
1996 the Finance Department has used this as a "sole source ". However, Mrs. Butler
stated it is not a "sole source" because the company fills the order from what the City has
32
01/21/14
asked and every four (4) years the Finance Department would re -quote it out and receive
new quotes and Otto Environmental Systems was selected again because they were the
lowest cost. She stated when the specs are done this time staff is sending it out to all five
(5) companies and the one thing that has changed is the classic container that the City
uses. Mrs. Butler stated Otto Environmental Systems has informed the City that they will
no longer be making those carts so the City has to bid it out. Staff requested that the
Commission approve this purchase order as presented and noted staff is going on the
street with its new specs next month.
Mrs. Petrolia asked how many carts are in reserve. Mrs. Butler stated she
is not sure of the number; however, her staff knows what the inventory is and what
projects are coming online that need the carts the City does not have enough to fill all the
needs for this fiscal year. Mrs. Butler commented about the number of carts that will get
to the number of units that arc coming online and the trends on replacement carts. Mrs.
Butler stated staff has been able to keep the cost down. Mrs. Petrolia stated this has been
on and off the schedule since early November 2013 and she does not understand why
staff is waiting until February to bid this. Mrs. Petrolia stated she contacted Mr. Mark
Brodrick from Cascade who indicated that his company can meet the specs of the City's
trash cans with the only difference being the location of the serial number and she feels it
is unusual.
Mrs. Butler stated the City orders three different cart sizes (30 gallon, 65
gallon, and 95 gallon) and three different costs.
At this point, the time being 12:05 a.m., Mr. Jacquet moved to extend the
meeting, seconded by Mrs. Petrolia. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows:
Mrs. Petrolia — Yes; Mr. Jacquet — Yes; Mr. Frankel — Yes; Mrs. Gray — Yes; Mayor
Glickstein — Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
Mrs. Petrolia stated looking at the Orlando purchasing in August 2012
Otto quoted $43.50 for the same trash can that the City of Delray Beach is going to be
paying $51.50. Mrs. Butler stated staff consulted with the City of Orlando and obtained
their current prices for the 95 gallon cart which is $1.50 less than what the City is
currently paying. On November 5, 2013, Mrs. Butler stated staff had a comment for the
City Commission explaining that staff contacted the City of Orlando and they provided
the detailed information on their carts. Mrs. Butler stated the City of Orlando stated they
use a similar system based on the need for the 95 gallon container and they pay $51.50
for each container.
Mrs. Petrolia stated she is not in favor of this because she feels this should
go out to bid.
Mayor Glickstein stated there is some confusion regarding whether or not
this was a sole provider. Mrs. Butler stated any one of the five companies will do this
and staff will bid this out. However, Mrs. Butler stated she is caught in a fiscal year
using an old policy.
33
01/21/14
Mrs. Gray supports staff moving forward and allowing staff to purchase
the carts at this time.
Mr. Jacquet asked what happens if this does not go forward and the City
needs to go out to bid. Mrs. Butler noted it takes three months from the time the carts are
ordered; approximately 3 months for the RFP process and 3 months for the carts to be
delivered once they are ordered. Mrs. Butler stated she cannot afford to run out of carts.
Mayor Glickstein stated the last time this was discussed by the City
Commission and the City Manager and given the logistical constraints that staff could
purchase at the 525,000 level with the new procurement ordinance. Mrs. Butler stated
staff has already done that.
Mayor Glickstein stated he supports with the caveat that staff go back to
the vendor to get the best price possible.
Mr. Jacquet moved to approve Item 9.D. (formerly Item 8.T.3.),
seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Jacquet —
Yes; Mr. Frankel — Yes; Mrs. Gray — Yes; Mayor Glickstein Yes; Mrs. Petrolia — No.
Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote, Mrs. Petrolia dissenting.
At this point, the time being 7:00 p.m., the Commission moved to Item
10, Public Hearings.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10.A. ORDINANCE NO. 01 -14: Consider a small -scale Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) Amendment for two parcels of land, as more particularly described herein, from
OS (Open Space) to LD (Low Density Residential 0 -5 DU /AC), and from LD (Low
Density Residential 0 -5 DU /AC) to OS (Open Space), respectively, for the Seagate
Country Club Villas, located on the north side of Greensward Lane, East of Hamlet
Drive, within the Seagate Country Club. (STAFF HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS
ITEM BE POSTPONED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE BECAUSE IT HAS NOT
GONE BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION)
11. FIRST READINGS:
A. None
12. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS.
12.A. City Manager
The City Manager stated he received an email from Mr. Geddy today
regarding his circular driveway. The City Manager stated the City was installing curbing
and one side of Mr. Geddy's driveway was actually cleared and the other side of the
34
01 /21/14
driveway was not cleared. However, the City has fixed the portion that was not cleared
and will continue with the curbing installation.
Secondly, the City Manager commented about the Oceanside Beach
Services contract.
Mayor Glickstein asked Mr. James Scala what the quantity of equipment
is that has historically been there. Mr. Scala stated they counted 250 as a unit; the cabanas
are comprised of two chairs, a table, and a hood/cabana and they have counted that as one
(1). Mr. Scala stated if they are directed to count each individual chair as a single piece
of equipment that means the amount of seating available will be cut by more than 50 %.
Mayor Glickstein asked what recourse a recipient of that RFP has against
the City to challenge the city if in fact they say "we changed the deal." Ms. Pybum stated
at this point the City's two options: to look at terminating the contract or amending the
contract.
Mayor Glickstein stated it all started with a sloppy RFP and the City is
still wasting time because of a sloppy RFP. Mayor Glickstein asked Ms. Pyburn what her
suggested course of conduct to correct it would be. In response, Ms. Pyburn suggested
that this item come back to the City Commission at their regular meeting of February 4,
2014 for direction on whether or not to either amend it to get clarification and make sure
the Commissioners are all on the same page going forward or to terminate the contract.
Mr. Frankel stated it is unthinkable for any vendor to have to pay double
and then have his equipment cut in half. Mr. Frankel stated he concurs with
Commissioner Gray and Commissioner Jacquet that the one cabana would constitute one
piece.
Mrs. Gray asked if there is a reason why the equipment was delayed and
not placed on the beach by the December 20, 2013 date as promised by the vendor. The
City Manager stated the vendor represented to the Commission that he was going to
manufacture the equipment and he has subsequently changed the type of equipment that
he is buying. The City Manager stated the vendor is now offering the City two (2) chaise
lounge chairs that are not connected together and has a separate table between them. The
City Manager stated instead of manufacturing this equipment the vendor is purchasing
this equipment from a vendor in North Carolina and it is based on availability. The City
Manager stated he and Ms. Pyburn are meeting with Oceanside representatives on Friday
to talk about the substance of not getting the equipment on the beach in a timely manner.
The City Manager stated part of the reason Mr. Novatka indicated that he was changing
the type of equipment was that he wanted to facilitate the breakdown because during
turtle nesting season he has to breakdown the equipment nightly.
Mr. Jacquet stated he was under the impression that the City was still
going to have two adjoined chairs with the table but these are actually going to be
separate chairs. Mr. Jacquet stated whether it is 250 units or 300 units the background
information the vendor has in his mind is a unit is the unit he normally has. However,
35
01/21/14
Mr. Jacquet stated if they are separate pieces as opposed to being that one unit, then it
poses more ambiguity.
Mayor Glickstein suggested that at the meeting between the City Manager
and the Interim City Attorney that the City Manager report back to the Commission with
a definitive date on when every piece of equipment is going to be on the beach new and
what the configuration of equipment will be.
For the record, Mr. Jacquet stated he would like direction from the Interim
City Attorney as to what constitutes one piece of equipment.
Mrs. Petrolia stated Mr. Scala had from March/April 2013 to determine
what kind of furniture he was going to put in his specs in the RFP and bid to the City of
Delray Beach. Mrs. Petrolia stated in January 2014 after the signed contract all of a
sudden the entire bid process is changing.
Mrs. Gray stated she feels staff was too rushed with regard to the RFP and
thus the reason for the errors in the process.
In summary, Mayor Glickstein stated staff recommended cancellation of
the RFP so this Commission effectively took that ability away from staff to go back and
take their time when the Commission recognized that there were problems. Mayor
Glickstein stated staff and the City Manager were recommending that the RFP be
terminated and the City go back out to an RFP. Mayor Glickstein stated because this was
not done the City is left with those ambiguities that were not clarified in the contract.
Mayor Glickstein stated the Commission has very little patience relative to when the
contract terms are going to be satisfied so whatever that equipment is that it is on the
beach in its entirety very soon or that 30 -day clause is still in the contract. Ms. Pyburn
concurred with comments expressed by Mayor Glickstein.
12.B. City Attorney
The Interim City Attorney thanked the Commission for bearing with her
during her reading of the Board Order.
12.C. City Commission
12.C.1. Mr. Frankel
Mr. Frankel stated he would like to know when the construction will start
for the iPic Theater.
Secondly, Mr. Frankel commented about the panhandlers and appreciates
the City Attorney's office expediting that.
Mr. Frankel stated Salt Water Brewery (new brewery near I -95) requested
to have food trucks because they do not have food service. He stated Planning and
36
01/21/14
Zoning informed him it was not allowed but the City lost a perspective business on
Federal Highway because of this. Mr. Frankel stated he has seen the successes in Austin,
Texas with this. Mr. Frankel asked that this be brought before the Commission.
Mr. Frankel stated he spoke numerous times to the owner of Naked Hair
Salon and requested that staff look into Mr. Shumann's concerns.
Mr. Frankel stated Delray Beach was bestowed an amazing honor by
nationally being recognized as "The Most Fun Small Town in America" and he does not
see any signs promoting that. He stated there should be some designation and feels it is
important for tourists to understand that.
Mr. Frankel stated he was on I -95 over the weekend and he saw one of the
electric billboards saying "Delray Center for the Arts exit here." Mr. Frankel stated he
feels it is a waste of money that they have to advertise that the exit is Atlantic Avenue.
The City Manager stated he spoke to Joe Gillie who informed him that he
had a brown designated sign and it was taken down post hurricane and it is still in the
approval process with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
12.C.2. Mrs. Gray
Mrs. Gray stated the MLK events this weekend were awesome.
Secondly, Mrs. Gray inquired about the joint meeting with the Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA). The City Clerk stated the joint meeting will be held at
the Workshop meeting of February 11, 2014.
Lastly, Mrs. Gray stated she would like to get more information about the
Police Benevolent Association (PBA) one year contract.
12.C.3. Mrs. Petrolia
Mrs. Petrolia stated she received an email from Kenneth Zeno to consider
March as Melanoma Awareness Month. The City Manager stated a proclamation can be
done for this.
Secondly, Mrs. Petrolia stated the NOAA training needs a sign up for the
City.
Mrs. Petrolia stated Mr. Ferreri discussed the Police and Fire negotiations
and urged the Commission to look at doing something temporary for the Police
Department. Mrs. Petrolia encouraged the City Manager to look into this if at all possible
as long as it does not negate or compromise the efforts to negotiate.
37
01/21/14
Mrs. Petrolia stated at the last regular Commission meeting there was a
negative comment made from the dais about a resident and she respectfully urged the
entire Commission to keep the trash that is online off the dais.
Mrs. Petrolia stated it was a wonderful MLK Breakfast and the Spady
Museum did a beautiful job. In addition, Mrs. Petrolia commended Mayor Glickstein for
his speech.
12.C.4. Mr. Jacquet
Mr. Jacquet stated the City Commission can get an ID from Human
Resources.
Secondly, Mr. Jacquet asked the Commission if they feel the parking
passes would be useful for the Commission to have to be able to park downtown while
meeting with constituents.
With regard to the parking passes for the City Commission, Mr. Frankel
asked if there is anything that could be considered unethical or could this be looked at as
the granting of a gift.
With regard to the parking passes for the City Commission, Mayor
Glickstein stated he does not support it and the City Manager had reported to him that the
Police Department does not support this either. Mayor Glickstein stated he feels this
contradicts what the City is trying to do in terms of parking management. Terrill Pyburn,
Interim City Attorney, stated she would look into this and get back with the Commission.
12.C.5. Mayor Glickstein
Mayor Glickstein suggested placing the logo "The Most Fun Small
Town" on the next order of City letterhead and posting it on the homepage of the City's
website.
There being no further business, Mayor Glickstein declared the meeting
adjourned at 12:50 a.m.
City Clerk
ATTEST:
6�<--Oi -
YOR
38
01/21/14
The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the
information provided herein is the Minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeting held
on January 21, 2014, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City
Commission on February 24, 2014.
City Clerk
NOTE TO READER:
If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they
are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official
Minutes only after review and approval which may involve some amendments, additions
or deletions as set forth above.
39
01/21/14
IN THE CITY COMMISSION
CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE.CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
APPEAL OF THE SPRAB '1112011.3 AND 121181'13 APPROVALS OF A
.CLASS V SITE. PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN; ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS,
AND SPECIAL ACTION ASSOCIATED WITH ATLANTIC CROSSING
1, This is an appeal of the November. 20, 2013. . and December 18; 2013
decisions by the Site Plan. Review and Appearance Board ("SPRAB ") approving the
-Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Architectural Elevations, and Special Action
associated with Atlantic Crossing which came before the City Commission at its meeting
on January 21, 2014.
2. The Appellants, Appellee and .City staff presented documentary evidence
and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the appeal of the .approval of a
Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Architectural Elevations, and Special Action
associated with Atlantic Crossing. Required findings are made in accordance with
Subsections 1, II, III,. and V.
L LDR REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS V SITE PLAN. APPROVAL:
A. LDR Section 2`.4.5(F)(5), "Findings ": The approving body must make a
finding that development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and
harmonious with adjacent and. nearby properties and the City as a whole so as not to
cause substantial depreciation of property values..
and
LDR Section 3.1..1, "Required Findings ". Prior to the approval of development
applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record.
This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials
submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the
body which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These
findings relate to the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan Consistency,.
Concurrency; and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. At its meeting
of December 4, 2012, the City Commission made positive .findings with respect to the
Future Land Use Maps Comprehensive. Plan Consistency, and Concurrency provided
conditions of approval are addressed.
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.B.
And
Central core area of the Central Business. District Zoning District provided in Exhibit `A ".
Are those gudel.lnes met ?'
Yes 3 No 2
II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
A. Future Land Use Maa /Future Land Use Element Obiective A -1:
Is the property developedlredeveloped so that the future use .and
intensity is appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other
applicable physical considerations, is complementary to adjacent
land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs And is consistent
with the Land. Use Map?
Yes 3 No 2
B. Concurrence: Objective B =2 of the land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan requires: that development not exceed the: ability of the City to fund
and provide, or to, require the provision of; .needed capital improvements for the
following areas:
Are the concurrency requirements met with respect to water, sewer,
drainage, streets and traffic, parks, open space, solid waste and
school's?
Yes 4 No 1
C, Consistency:
Will the granting of the Special action item, the Class V Site Plan,
Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations be consistent with and
further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan?
Yes: 3 No 2
Ill. ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS PURSUANT TO LDR SECTION 4.6.18(E):'
A. The play of the proposed structure is in conformity with good taste; good
design, and in general; contributes to the image of the City as a place of
beauty, spaciousness, harmony, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high
quality_
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.B.
B. The proposed structure, or project, is in its exterior design and
appearance of. quality such as not to: cause the nature of the local
environment to materially depreciate in appearance and. value.
C. The proposed structure, or project, is in harmony with the proposed
developments in the general area, with the Comprehensive Plan, and. with
the supplemental criteria which may be set forth for the Board from time to
time.
Have the overall requirements of LDR. Section. 4.6.18(E) been met?
Yes 3 No 2.
IV. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS,
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16, "Minimum Landscape Requirements ",
Subsection 4.6.16(H)(3)•, "New Multiple Family, Commercial and Industrial
Development ", provided requirements set forth in Exhibit "B
Have the overall requirements of LDR Section 4.6.16 been met?
Yes 5 No 4
V. SPECIAL ACTION REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(4)(e)4., modification to the frontage
requirements may be granted by the City. Commission in order to accommodate plazas
that connect the building to the sidewalk and promote social interaction by offering one
or more of the following` public seating areas, sidewalk cafes, sculptures or other
artwork for display, and similar features.
Have the overall requirements of LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(4)(e)4 been
met?
Yes 5 No 0
3. The City Commission. has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LDR
requirements in existence at the time the original site plan was submitted:
4. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent. substantial
evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained
in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other
competent witnesses. supporting these findings.
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.8.
5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves
denies ✓ the appeal, subject to the following conditions set forth in Exhibits "C ",
"D", and ``E"
The City Commission hereby adopts, this Order this 21st day of .January, 2014,
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.8.
EXHIBIT "A"
54,
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
Items identified In i the Land Dev m
elo entR specifically egulations. shall specifically be addressed. by the
P
body taking final action on the site and development applicationfrequest.
LDR Section 4.4.13 — Central Business District
Building Setbacks:
The following tables indicate that the proposal complies with LDR Section 4.4.13(-F)(4) as it
pertains to the Downtown Design Guidelines for the Central Business District (CBD) zone
district, except for those portions of the buildings ings as noted in the furthest column to the right
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.
J'Y4011i
I
O'llikill,
W1 -.�i
11
wl� �11
!H
J!"
11re
4
Al
It'd
1[
700/a
10'
183.25'
ipin./236.4
155.424
10
11�olf IM
I
L'
t i.
Ground
Floor to
min.190%
max.
max.
8' nim
t.. ydnu
Pelu
25'
ill, It 1!
Remaining
1crigth
15, min.
27.48'
Min.
195.75.'
i4ar,
25' to
48-
70% n-iin.
15' min:
183.25'
185;75'
Ground
70%
Tnin.190O/.
10' max.
407.87'
rain /524.4
280.67'*
4:
max.
0' max..
ell
Floor to
ji i
I51
H
I
iI
4�
37'
Remainm'g
length.
15" mfn,
58.27'
...
279'
tll
W.. i
I
37' to
jr� 4F
70%mln'
15� nun.
407:87"
min.
554.6T
.0
��]111A,
ICI
48,
'to
;
60'
23�5.481
nun,
100%
11111 It 111
jil�jl;
qj
76%
180.43'
E
Ground
niiin./90%
10' max.
xvin.1231.9
M.25'
25'
S' Fr1aX-
Remaining
35.12?
15" min.
.8.0-25'
length
min.
24J7
"
25, to
70% min.
15' min_
180.43'
Min..
48' to
900% min.
30'
IGO%
607
Biro_
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.
Per LIR.Segtion fro n tage requirements maybe dby.the Site Plan Review
and
Appearance Board or the Hi storic.Preservatiom Board in orda to accommodate plazas that connect the building to the
sidewalk and promote- social interaction. by offering oxie or . titer ir. e of the fhllowing: public seating areas, sidewalk cafes,
sculptures Or other artwork. for public, display, acid simhar features. The applicant has. provided an alternative plan that
graphically depicts how The project would look, if compliance with the-design guidelines were achieved. The inability to
provide s6ffici6it building up on the street is due to 1W provision of public plazas and additional .. area for sidewalk cafes.
the o proposed development has demonstrated cligibi - lity for relief from the frontage requirements. The granting: of
relief by SPkAB is reflected in the Itecommen datim. SWioA"1.bf thi&.staff report under Special Actions.
The incorrectly note the lie buildingTrojitage aloagNE.Vb Avenue,. A condition of approval is attached that the plans are
revised to correctly note.the building..ffontagc.
The plans incorrectly change lie building, frontage for the Upper floors and incorrectly note the frontage provided for the
third . floor of building VI along, NF eStrect. A condition of approval is attached that the. plans be revised to con-ectty note
the northern frontage dimensions. of building V1.
ls"!�
467-63'
N
Ground
min.190%
10, max,
MUL 1524.1
287,08'*
T,
)r
1,N). . I to
max.
0' max
Remaining
15.'. mirL
58.23
290.25'
i'�! �i
VIIIIN
i01, f Jrjlj;I,.'i�ijji
251
length
:RI
rein.
lhl
"P, iq
mil
"lH
11 Ij—!
25'to
407.63'
1
IJ �:,,
IM
_l•;
II
11 f�,
48'
700/. min.
15' min.
111jj.!II 1.y
494.421
I IlJal rl�l !,,
q
111
n1Nl
1
lull R
'TH''
:I
431 to
90% min.
30'
524,10'
160%
►
III
hlk 11
II Ir,1
II
60'
min.
Per LIR.Segtion fro n tage requirements maybe dby.the Site Plan Review
and
Appearance Board or the Hi storic.Preservatiom Board in orda to accommodate plazas that connect the building to the
sidewalk and promote- social interaction. by offering oxie or . titer ir. e of the fhllowing: public seating areas, sidewalk cafes,
sculptures Or other artwork. for public, display, acid simhar features. The applicant has. provided an alternative plan that
graphically depicts how The project would look, if compliance with the-design guidelines were achieved. The inability to
provide s6ffici6it building up on the street is due to 1W provision of public plazas and additional .. area for sidewalk cafes.
the o proposed development has demonstrated cligibi - lity for relief from the frontage requirements. The granting: of
relief by SPkAB is reflected in the Itecommen datim. SWioA"1.bf thi&.staff report under Special Actions.
The incorrectly note the lie buildingTrojitage aloagNE.Vb Avenue,. A condition of approval is attached that the plans are
revised to correctly note.the building..ffontagc.
The plans incorrectly change lie building, frontage for the Upper floors and incorrectly note the frontage provided for the
third . floor of building VI along, NF eStrect. A condition of approval is attached that the. plans be revised to con-ectty note
the northern frontage dimensions. of building V1.
Per LDR Section 4.4: 13(F)(4)(c)(4), Modifications to the ftontage requirements may be granted by the Site Plan Review and.
Appearance board or the Historic Preservation Board in order to accommodate' ' plazas that connect the building to the
sidewalk. and promote social interaction by offering one or more of the following: public : seating; areas, sidewalk cafes.,
sculptures or other artwork for public. display, and similar features. The applicant has provided an alternative plan that
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.
I N
i'�! �i
VIIIIN
i01, f Jrjlj;I,.'i�ijji
loll..
:RI
lhl
"P, iq
mil
li�
11 Ij—!
1
IJ �:,,
:1[`I
_l•;
II
11 f�,
,.1
•,I!F
o1I
111jj.!II 1.y
I11�
I IlJal rl�l !,,
q
111
'l I!
:I
,
,f III I I1 II1
:II
L'I ; °I-;i, II
Ir:I,r,lf�
II
ett
'Pit CI
t
10171111i
1141
1] TI
I
?T:
14
ll I
i II
I Ij
700/c
inin.19W16
10' Max.
194.25'
min.1249,7
224,75'
ji "T
cl;'!'
Ground
max.
Y max.
V'i
25.,
Remaining
15, mhL
27.75'
52.75'
J.
min.
iii-4 1
25' to,
, 48'
70% miry.
15' min.
194.25'
2535'
A
mm.
'11w
Ground
Floor to
700/0
min.1900/.
11M.
1W max-
407.63'
rmit.1524.1
0' max:
240.58'*
Rlli$
TI-1
!
P 1! 11
25'
Remaining
jeAgth
15'min.
58.13'
min .
279-92'
25:' to
m.
70%io•
15' min.
407�63'
472.42'
49'
inin.
11 11 lt'I�j I
i
Ground
70%
min./900/0
171.62'
min./220.6
1$20
FlooTto
max.
25'
Remaining j min 63 -0' 24,52'
length min. 63-0'
�i jjii IV... 11,�4L !Nll!
25;to
48'
Pu?�guant to 1D)? Sertion 44-13(F) (4)(e)(1), upper. level setbacks do not apply. to 3=xtqry. tuvi)Inhomes;
Per LDR Section 4.4: 13(F)(4)(c)(4), Modifications to the ftontage requirements may be granted by the Site Plan Review and.
Appearance board or the Historic Preservation Board in order to accommodate' ' plazas that connect the building to the
sidewalk. and promote social interaction by offering one or more of the following: public : seating; areas, sidewalk cafes.,
sculptures or other artwork for public. display, and similar features. The applicant has provided an alternative plan that
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.
graphically depicts . how the project would look if complianee. with the design guidelines. were achieved_ The inability to
provide sufficient building up on the street is due to the provision of public plazas and additional area for sidewalk cafes.
Thus, the proposed development has demonstrated eligibility for relief from the frontage; requuemepts. The granting, of
relief by SPRAB is reflected in the Recommendation section of this staffreport under Special Actions.
Allowable Upper Level Floor Area:
Per LDR Section 4 4.13(F)(4)(b)(2), Section 4.4.13(F)(4)(c)(2), and Section 4.4.13- T)(4)(d)(1),
the floor area of the. upper levels of a building cannot exceed a .certain percentage of the
allowable ground level footprint area. The following table identifies the allowable ground level
footprint building. areas and the proposed upper levels for the proposed development;
N!I.IE�I
I
I .
I, j
�I1'
'Ii
slil
III
I� I4I
!II
'IIII !
I:.,E
: I,:
III -,II,
II L I
..i1 lil�IEI1I
'
li
I I'Ili tr'',l{
I :..
I::
I I:I•
I dill
I
I
II i
lul
':II
III
II11
1111 i
!{
II
,::� II.
III 4I;;IIiIL
fi�
I I�IIl E
j,l� l
I III
I
I. IEI �:nlll
I
I
-CE b ,11i1114e
I
I:;,
wl
III :'j
Jj.,.
E.
'i'; !_
[.
{�•Il.,ti
I �
�f.I.i
1111..:1.
i_ III,
I ,
,I�
a -I
..I
il-
I:
i i�:l
- I'II
+� _:,i I �
'P.. S..1
i ! LI,
.'I. vll
III ., al,l
!!`.; -I
LI!L- ,111111
IIE,L�['
I. I' L : �.ijII1I
•- I - -,Il
;...III,E:,al
Ilii..V
ilr llf
::
i I!I
•I, ;: IEr
i I -! c�• ii
,. LL ,:�!I!:
��I;$�liIL44L
.,.I
�� I , Ihh{I
., I I
:IIh�IIII[I
V :I �
ii
(11 ..
iil4!
4, .,
Julll'.Ii.l�E�lIII„
]I
_]
I I',
I in
II oa
,,,.,,,
.I -:, I�I!
i .'4:,
. III( - -i.
i ..I
:.I�i {:,ili✓-
L
14i.. �yI
�:I 'll
dl�Fli
I,-._
,i� :
: -�i
l;V�
l�
�
� �!I
,IIII"
I -.I
:I . -:il4
!III.
�,I ..E
ia�
l.i { {�;
.l.
li.44_
II:.::
�'I I ' I,�., �4� :
11;: i ,.a1.. ,
�I���I U�I!IIII�!,!I�II.iE
h
s. l�l;a
1!,�
I I :I,
..I .IIII
is
IIf1Ii
!'ll.
if �,.
-' �4•.
- V�
�. E�- Ili��`l
u�d�!
• -,:I�
- ICI
-:!'e Zrnu�-
:II it (� .,,1
I I4lf Gilt I
�ecen
hi.
�,
�ll ::: !.1111111.
.,,f
l nl
I
�;.
Ills
1 l ,
�,.,� � �II�,,
� 1
��
!
41;1;1
!, IIII
3ll;u
�.:h;{
I :,I!
Illla�.
., j,.
II �,�i
I �
411
I. III
�4 .., :111
.I ,_llll�
�
� 111 „11
;�
�'
J J
' I
I
IIII1:,1
!
II III ,.
4 ���
i I I
I
:�I: iI
�L�IE.
I I
I; hl �!
I G I
' lil , I
I ��,I
I � � �;�.;
.�
'�'I- .:
� I .
�'
ili
IIII -�n 111,
I
���Sli ilr!'1
I pol.
=1 I -�4 �I
ifi'llljjl, 4 I ji
,iiL IILII. L, ._111!4'1,11,
;
I : is
1. �II,: 1:ull
I I
u.l��.
'I .I !1111
_i -:I! Il �..1.
��
'., 11
I p
Y�' F — I
it I
II,.
; I "li
!1 ,�7.�
1 it ,
�,ll�,�h•.Iii•;11�.•1-
1
�II�.
�!�1.1
r,I
,•.1�
111111
l�rl vl
llbh�
}n141�14'ill4.:l:
354,091sq.fft.
70%
47.16% (1.65,985 sq,ft)
ThirdFloor
354,091sq.ft:
70%
28.28 %(100;125 sq. ft.)
Fourth Floor
354,091sq.ft.
50 %d
1.1.71°C (41,483 sq.ft:)
Fifth Floor
Side Interior Setback:
Per LDR Section 4.4.13(F')(5)(4), a 10 -foot setback is required along the east side of the.property
adjacent to Veterans Park and 10.5 feet is proposed. Thus, the development complies with &s.
requirement,
Parking' Requirements:
MR Section 4.4.13 (0)(1)(a), the required parldng for the retail floor area is 1 parking space per
300 square feet of total gross floor area. Per LDR Section 4.4.13(G)(1)(d), the required parking
for restaurants is 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of total gross floor area. Per LDR Section
4.4.13(G)(1)(i)(1), the required parking for the office floor area is one parking space per 300
square feet of net floor area.
Parking for multi- family residential structures and mixed use developments must be provcled
pursuant to the following:
• Eifidenc "dwelthig snit
1.0 space/u nit
• One bedroom dwellin -: unit
125 spaces /unit:
•: Two or mane bedroom dwellin 'unit
1.75 spaceslutiit
a Guest paTkingshall be provided cumulatively.as follows:
- far the first-20 units
0,50 s aceslunit.
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.B.
- for units 21 -50 030 spates/unit
- for units 5.1 and:.at ove 0.20 s aceslunit
'lie proposed development contains 37,642 square feet of retail, 39,434 square feet of restaurant
and outdoor dining area, 83,462 square feet of office along with 343 residential dwelling units .
that are comprised of 6 townhouse units (all are three- bedroom., units), 25 loft units, 97 one
bedroom, 201 two - bedroom, and 14 three - bedroom units.
Based on this development mix, the required parking for the proposed development is 1.,026
parking spaces when adjusted by the shared parking allowance noted below. LDR Section
4.6.9(C)(8)(a) — Shared Parking :allows for buildings; or a combination of buildings on a unified
site, to utilize the shared parking calculations which affords reduced parking requirements by
accommodating varied peak utilization. periods for different uses (see below):.:
The site plan data table indicates that total of 1;089 parking spaces on -site via a combination of
above grade and below grade parking (1078 spaces); 12 townhouse garage spaces, and 1.1
parallel parking spaces along 'NE 7h Avenue. However, in tabulating the actual pai kitig.
provided from the floor plans, the project provides:. only 1,076 parking spaces. Thus, the
proposed development .contains a surplus of 50parking spates.
The subgrade parking area on the: west side of NE 7th Avenue has a two -way driveway from-NE
7'h Avenue. (abandoned and now a private street) and a one- -way vehicular egress onto NE 6th
Avenue (!Northbound Federal).. This parking area contains :271 reserved (gated) parking spaces
and 144 shared parking spaces that will be accessible to the public; The vehicular ingress/egress
access points will be gated for control and payment purposes A driveway onto Federal Highway
is proposed approximately 300 feet south of the intersection with NE 1" Street.. While we have
received. a :concern over its proximity to NE. I" Street it allows essentially the length of a'football.
field for drivers to transition to the western lane to make the left turn at the intersection.
The above grade parking garage fln the east side of NE 71' Avenue contains 380 shared parking .
spaces and 93 reserved spaces. This facility is accessed via a driveway along NE 18' Street and a
driveway from the circular drive along NE 7th Avenue. This facility is alga gated for: control and
payment purposes, The reserved spaces are located on the ground floor and are accessed from
City Commission Meeting on January 21,2014; Item 9.13.
1 ,'. }! I �] i,
an . I
' W Lida - +., �� 1 d �"
.jn I ..I! l„ . t
e ;, I'y u� �l Wee enaiy hI�� I,AI
.. 1- ^it. El. i` Il _
�;.r-� + 1 L
l�IA I{ C
y 1 i
"CC M�rppS.�...FYY�F i
! � }y�
1p� t_GV,fC.RIII�
-h t
- -.�.1
ij j I 1'k
t � {''f
d;
��4�AIC'I
x6�1V14olltid
•. .#'i
19;�4M.#o�,RM 1_,
.I &.PMto11'Iiari� ht!i
liesideti"l
17L6
10M'01 171.6
11 600/° 102.96
90 %��� 04.44
$0 ° /v. III,- - 13728
900/° '� 154.44
Office
278207
.`I'3 ; ii 13.91035
100°!° ; 278.247
4.
10` 27:8207
lti " /°I I 27.$207
:'S °la'. 1391035
ComnterciaURetail
125.473
.' 5 %`f "" b,27365
70 °1° 87.1311
90%' 1139257
100 125:473
87:83.11
lintel
&0g� °' b
h 80° /d:'' D
100 ° /',i 0
Restaurant
236604
j''!'100 %f.:' 23_6604
1' SQ%°'. 1183D2
100°!0 216.604
50% 1I8:302
.1100 %`I 236:604
8nieitainmentlRecfeattona1
theatres, bowling aiie s etc:.
10% ! . 0
: 44 °l6, - 0
0
80b% 1: 0
1D0 °1°;•II
0'
Reserved ParlQn
439
.:100 ° /a ', 439
i', I00 %;' 439
WOW , 439
194f° 439
10A.
439
Other
:T00�1' 0
!I; 100% 0
100 %°.'', 0
100 °l iE; 4
1UOl° 0
TOTALS:
1251
€ 654
1021
,fir 971
84B
The site plan data table indicates that total of 1;089 parking spaces on -site via a combination of
above grade and below grade parking (1078 spaces); 12 townhouse garage spaces, and 1.1
parallel parking spaces along 'NE 7h Avenue. However, in tabulating the actual pai kitig.
provided from the floor plans, the project provides:. only 1,076 parking spaces. Thus, the
proposed development .contains a surplus of 50parking spates.
The subgrade parking area on the: west side of NE 7th Avenue has a two -way driveway from-NE
7'h Avenue. (abandoned and now a private street) and a one- -way vehicular egress onto NE 6th
Avenue (!Northbound Federal).. This parking area contains :271 reserved (gated) parking spaces
and 144 shared parking spaces that will be accessible to the public; The vehicular ingress/egress
access points will be gated for control and payment purposes A driveway onto Federal Highway
is proposed approximately 300 feet south of the intersection with NE 1" Street.. While we have
received. a :concern over its proximity to NE. I" Street it allows essentially the length of a'football.
field for drivers to transition to the western lane to make the left turn at the intersection.
The above grade parking garage fln the east side of NE 71' Avenue contains 380 shared parking .
spaces and 93 reserved spaces. This facility is accessed via a driveway along NE 18' Street and a
driveway from the circular drive along NE 7th Avenue. This facility is alga gated for: control and
payment purposes, The reserved spaces are located on the ground floor and are accessed from
City Commission Meeting on January 21,2014; Item 9.13.
NE 1" Street. Given the peak usage times of the valet queue, the primary access to the garage
will be from NE. I" Street. The .applicant has indicated that this garage will be utilized for valet
overflow. .
The subgrade parking facility on the east, side of NE 7h: Avenue contains 63 reserved parking .
spaces and 81 shared parking spaces.. The applicant has indicated that this facility will. be the
primary valet storage lot:. Given the peak usage and congestion, the developer will likely need to:
valet the resident's (reserved) vehicles in addition to the general public. The valet queue is
designed with an entrance at the porte cochere, which: serves as the drop -off. A. s stated, vehicles
are parked .in the primary sub grade: facility and overflow to the above grade garage. Vehicle
retrieval will occur further along the circular drive.. The sidewalk. around the. circular drive
includes a covered; walkway for customer protection from the elements as they wait to retrieve
their vehicles. All three parking garages will have roll down gates to secure these parking areas-
after hours.
LDR Section 4.3.3 — Special Requirements for Specific Uses:
Generators
Per LDR Section 4.3.3(00) &. (0.0O), all new multifamily residential buildings (including
hotels and motels) equipped with public elevators shall provide auxiliary power generators for all
interior corridor lighting: and exit signs and at least one public elevator together with the
clubhouse. The proposed development provides' a generator for .each of the buildings that
contain residential units.: Based on the above, the development complies with this requirement.
LDR Section 4.3.4 —Base, District DeveIopment Standards:
Open Space:
Per LDR Section 4 3.4(K),. the minimum open, space on the CF zoned property is 25% and 47%
is proposed. Thus; this requirement has been met. Per LDR Section 4.4.13 (F)(2), within the area
encompassed by the boundaries of the original. Downtown Development: Authority as described
in Section: 8.2.2(B) there. shall be. no minimum open space requirement. Notwithstanding the
provisions of this: section, the body acting upon .a development application within the CBD may
require that open areas, i..ncluding but not,lirnited to .courtyards, plazas, and landscaped setbacks,
be provided in order to add.: interest and provide relief from the building mass. It is noted that the
proposed development has provided 32,048 square feet (8.55 %) of the total projcct area as: open
space landscaped area.
Minimum Residential Floor Area:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(II)(6) and LDR Section. 4:3.4(K)[Mirimi um residential floor
area]; the minimum required floor area for efficiency dwelling. units is 400 'square feet, a one -
bedroom unit is 600 square feet, a two - bedroom unit is 900 square feet, and a three - bedroom unit
is 1,250 square feet, There are 25' efficiency (loft) dwelling units that range m' size from 4.79
square feet to '663. square feet;; 97 one - bedroom dwelling units that range in size from 663 square
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.
feet to 1,066 square feet; 201 two - bedroom dwelling units that range in size from %3 square feet
to 1,997 square feet; and 20 three- bedroom units that range in size from 1,997 square feet to
3,962 square feet. Based upon the above this LDR requirement has been met.
Workforce Housing:
As noted in the background section of this staff 'report, the development was granted conditional
use approval to increase the height of the building to 60 feet and a density of 43 dwelling units
.per acre subject to the condition that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the requirements
of,Article 4.7 (workforce housing) prior to certification of the .site plan, Per LDR Section
4.3.4( J)(4)(b)(iii),. workforce housing equal to at least 20 % of the residential units on the top
floor (fifth story) shall be provided within: the development, offsite; or through monetary
contributions as referenced in Article 4.7. Further pursuant. to LDR :Section 4.4.13(l)(1)
(density), the developmient is required to provide 20% of the dwelling units al one 30 dwelling
units per acre as workforce units...
The revised development proposal contains 33 dwellings on the fifth floor. The developer is.
now required to provide 7 workforce dwelling units. for the height increase. The current
development proposal 'includes 86 dwelling units over .30 dwelling units per acre. The
development is now required to provide. 18 workforce units for the density increase. The total
required workforce requirement for the development is 25 dwelling units'. The units (if any) that
are provided either .on -site or .off -site will need to comply with the location and amenity
requirements of LDR Section 4.7.9. if the. developer opts to contribute : monetary :funds; an -in-
lieu payment of $160,000 per unit will be required payable fo the City of Delray Beach Housing
Trust Fund. The workforce housing option(s) and compliance with Article 4.7 will need to be
finalized prior to certification of the site plan and this is attached as .a condition of approval.
Building Height Restriction:
Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(4)(b)(i)(9), an increase to a maximum height of sixty feet, may
be approved by the City Commission as a conditional use. for property withiii the Central Core
portion of the CBD (Central Business District); except for that portion within 150 feet of any
zoning district which has a maximum height limit of 35 feet„ measured from the property line of
the CBD zoned. property. The property located at the northwest corner of NE`7t' Avenue and NE'
1 Street and 'east of this intersection is zoned: RM (Multiple. Family Residential — Medium.
Density). which has a 35 -foot maximum height requirement. Thus, the 15.0 -foot separation
requirement applies to building #6, which..includes a fifth floor. The fifth -story floor: plan for
building #6 graphically depicts the 15046.6t separation. Therefore, the; proposed development
complies: with this. requirement
Floor Height:
Per LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(1)(c), the floor height shall be a mi=" ti n. of 10 feet for ground
floors and a minimum height, of 9 feet for all. other floors. All 1eights< shall, be measured .from
finished floor to finished ceiling. Auxiliary and service rooms, such. as,. garages; restrooms,,
closets; laundry rooms, dressing rooms, storage rooms, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.B.
equipment rooms are exempted from the floor height. regulations, The smallest required ground
floor height for all buildings are those with residential use on the ground floor, which have a
height of 10 feet.. The smallest required upper floor heights for all buildings are also the
residential building with a floor height of 9.08 feet. Thus, the proposed development complies
with the m riimurn floor height requirements.
Special Buffer:
Per LDR Section 4,4.21(H)(2), when the C1 zone district, is adjacent to .residential zoning, the
perimeter landscape area should be increased to a depth of fifteen feet; or, as an alternative,
either a wall, decorative fencing; or hedging should be installed for aesthetic and buffer
purposes. The suggested 15 -foot perimeter landscape area has been provided on the north and
east sides of the parking lot on the north side of NE 1" Street.
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.
EXHIBIT "B"
(3) New Multiple Family, Commercial, and Industrial Development: Multi-
family, commercial, industrial and all other uses are required to comply with the
M inimum requirements for off- street parking. On the site of a building or open -lot use
providing an off- street parking, storage or other vehicular use area, where such an area
will not 'be screened visually by an intervening building or structure from an abutting
right =of -way or dedicated alley, there shall be provided landscaping as follows:
Perimeter requirements adjacent to public and private rights -of -way;
(a) A strip of land at least five (.5) feet in depth located. between the bffF
street parking area or other vehicular use area and the right. -of -way
shall be landscaped,. provided, however, that should.. the zoning
code of the Delray. Code of Ordinances require additional perimeter
depths, that the provisions of the zoning code shall prevail. This
landscape strip shall be .free of any vehicular encroachment,
including car overhang. The landscaping shall consist of at. least
one tree for each thirty (30) linear feet or fraction thereof. The trees
shall be located between the right-of -way line and the off - street
parking or vehicular use area. Where_ the depth of the perimeter
landscape strip adjacent to the right-of-way exceeds fifteen (15)
feet, shade trees may be planted in clusters, but the maximum
spacing. shall. not exceed fifty (50) feet. The remainder of the
landscape, area shall be landscaped with grass, ground coven, or
other landscape treatment excluding pavement.
Additionally, a. hedge, wall or other durable landscape area shall be
placed along the interior perimeter of the landscape strip. if a
hedge is used, it must be a minimum of two. (2): feet in height at the
time of planting and attain a minimum height of three (3) feet above
the finished grade of the adjacent vehicular use or off- street parking
area within one year of planting;.
Multiple tier plantings are strongly encouraged for. all properties,
regardless of the depth of the landscape buffer. Those properties
that have a landscape buffer depth of ten (10) feet or more shall. be
required to provide an additional layer of groundcover_ The
groundcover shall be located directly in front of the required hedge,
so as to be visible from the adjacent right -of -way: This groundcover
shall be installed at one -half (112) of the height of the required
perimeter hedge.
If a nonliving barrier is: used, it shall be a minimum of three (3) feet
above the finished grade of the adjacent vehicular use. Nonliving
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 93.
barriers shall require additional landscaping to soften them and
enhance their appearance. For each ten (10) feet of nonliving
barrier, a shrub or vine shall be planted along the street side of the
barrier, in addition to tree requirements.
Earth berms may be used only when installed in. conjunction with
sufficient plant materials to satisfy the screening requirements. The
slope of the berm shall riot exceed a 3;1 ratio
Hedges for multi- family projects
residential. use from an. adjacent
way may attain a height of eight
the adjacent roadway
which are used to separate a
arterial or collector road right -of-
(8) feet to mitigate the impact of
Perimeter hedging installed to effect screening of storage areas
must. be a minimum of seventy -five (75) percent of the height of the
storage structure at the time of installation and be permitted to grow
to: a height to conceal the materials being stored. Perimeter shade
trees are required to.be planted every thirty (30) feet and are not
permitted to be clustered,.
(b) The unpaved portion of the right -of=way adjacent to the property
line shall be landscaped with sod and provided with irrigation and
maintenance.
(c) The width of aceessways which provide access to a site or
vehicular use areas may be subtracted from the linear dimensions
used to determine the number of trees required.
Perimeter landscaping requirements relating to abutting properties:
(d) A landscaped barrier shall be provided between the. off - street
parking area or other vehicular use area and abutting properties.
The landscape barrier may be two (2) feet at the time of planting..
and, achieve and be maintained at not less than three (3) nor
greater than six (6) feet in height to form a continuous screen
between the off- street parking area or vehicular use area and such
abutting property: This. landscape barrier shall be located between
the common lot line and the off- street parking area or other
vehicular use area in a planting strip of not less than five (5) feet in
width that is free of any vehicular encroachment; including car
overhang. Duplexes may be permitted to reduce the perimeter
planting strip to two and one -half (2 112) feet in width in cases
where lot frontage is less than fifty -five. (55) feet, In addition, one (1)
tree shall be provided for every.thirty (30) linear feet of such
landscaped barrier or fraction thereof.
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.
(e) Where any commercial or industrial areas abut a residential zoning
district or properties in. residential use; in addition to requirements
established for district boundary line separators in the zoning code.,
one. (1) tree: shall be planted every twenty -five (25) feet to form a
solid tree line
(f): The provisions for perimeter landscape requirements relating to
abutting, properties shall not be applicable where: a proposed
parking area or other vehicular use area abuts an existing hedge or
established tree line,: the existing hedge and trees may be used to
satisfy the landscape requirements provided the existing material
meets all applicable standards. The landscape strip, a minimum of
five (5) feet in depth., however, is still required, and must be
landscaped with sod or ground cover and be free of any vehicular
encroachment, including car overhang. If the existing landscaping
does not meet the standards of this article, additional landscaping
shall be required as necessary to meet the standards. In the event
that the landscaping provided by the adjacent property which has
been used. to satisfy the. landscaping requirements for the property
making application is. ever removed, the property heretofore using
the existing vegetation to satisfy landscaping requirements, rriust
then install landscaping as required to comply with the provisions of
this code. Interior landscape requirements for parking and other
Vehiicular use areas.
(g) The amount of interior landscaping within off- street parking areas
shall amount. to no less than ten percent (10 %) of the total area
used -for parking and accessways:
(h) There shall be a group of palms or a shade tree for every one
hundred twenty-five (125) square feet of required interior
landscaping. No more than, twenty=five percent (259/6). of these
required trees shall be palms.
(i) Landscape islands which contain a minimum of one hundred thirty-
five (135) square feet of planting area; with a minimum dimension
of nine (9) feet, exclusive .of the required curb, shall be placed at
intervals of no. less. than one landscaped island for every thirteen
(13) standard parking spaces. One shade tree shall be planted in
every island with a minimum of seventy -five (75) square feet of
shrubs. and groundeovers. Tree specifications shall adhere to those
listed in Section 4.6.16(E)(5) and. 4.6.16(E)(6), Where, approval for
the us& of compact' parking has be approved., islands may be.
placed at intervals of no less than one (1) island for every fifteen
(15) .compact parking spaces:
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.B.
1. The distance between parking islands can be increased up
to fifteen (15) standard or seventeen (17) compact parking
spaces but the width of the parking island must be increased
by one (1) foot for each additional space (i.e. if the distance
between parking islands is fifteen (1) standard parking
spaces the parking island would. have to be eleven (11) feet
wide).
Properties within the Central. Business District (CBD)
shall adhere to the same_ landscape island width .
stated above, unless documentation of site
constraints provide that such island width is not
feasible. in such cases, the .City will accept landscape
islands with a minimum of seven (7): feet,
exclusive of curb,. with one hundred an five (105)
square feet of planting area. Under no circumstances
shall any landscape island have a width smaller than
seven (7) feet, exclusive of curb. Tree specifications
shall adhere to: those listed in Section 4.6.16(E)(5).
and 4.6.16(E)(6). Minimum tree height shall be
increased to eighteen feet (18') in overall height with
an eight foot (8') spread if the option to increase the
number of parking spaces between landscape islands
is chosen':
2. Unobstructed cross - visibility shall be maintained at all
terminal landscape islands where it intersects .a right -of -way.
Clear visibility shall be maintained. between three (3) feet to
six (6) feet above .ground. Proper plant selection shall be
utilized that fully accounts for the mature height and spread
of that plant. The proper design shall have love groundcovers
Within the nose of the island with small shrubs located at the
back end of the island.
{j) Each row of parking spaces shall be terminated by landscape
islands with dimensions as indicated above, An exception to this
requirement is when a landscaped area,. with the dimensions
above, exists at the end of the parking row.
(k) Whenever parking tiers abut,. they shall be separated by a minimum
five (5) foot wide landscape strip. This strip shall be in addition to
the parking stall and be free of any vehicular encroachment,
including car overhang. In addition; a two foot (2) hedge shall be
installed within this landscape strip and run the entire length of the
strip_ Pedestrian walkways are permitted to allow passage through
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 93.
the hedge. Nornmountable curbs are not required for these
I andscaping strips, providing carstops are. provided.
(I) Perimeter landscape strips which are required to be created by this
code or requirements of the zoning code shall not be credited to
satisfy any interior landscaping requirements, however, the gross
area of perimeter landscape strips which exceed minimum
requirements may be credited to satisfy the interior landscape
requirements of this section..
(m) Interior landscaping in both parking areas and other vehicular use
areas shall, insofar as possible„ be used to delineate and guide
major traffic movement within the parking area so as to prevent
cross -space driving wherever possible. A portion of. the landscaping
for interior parking spaces, not to exceed twenty -five percent (25 %)
of the total requirement, may be relocated so as to emphasize
corridors or special landscape areas within the general parking
area or adjacent to buildings located on the site, if helpful in
achieving greater overall aesthetic: effect.. Such relocated
landscaping. shall be in addition to the. perimeter landscaping
requirements.
(n) Existing native soil within all landscape islands, interior landscape
strips and perimeter landscape strips, adjacent to vehicular use
areas, shall be excavated down to a depth of thirty (3D) inches
below existing grade;. except for a 12" buffer from the inside of curb
or pavement (see .diagram below). A suitable planting soil mixture
o.Hifty /fifty (50150), sixty/forty (00/40) (sand /topsoil) or as otherwise
indicated. by the Registered Landscape Architect, shall either be
backfilled in place of the native soil or efficiently mixed with the
native soil to create an :optimum environment for successful root
development. If native soil is to be mixed, it shall first be screened
to remove rocks and debris larger than one -half (112) inch in
diameter prior to mixing. All properties under this section shall be
required to have an open landscape bed inspection prior to
backfilling to insure the thirty (30) inch depth has. been met.
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.
T O"--"� �-
OF aR3 (T)T)
IA11OPI AIWA 00" ��rl
�
aerm em (12" wuF) .
(o) All air - conditioning units and other mechanical equipment and
refuse areas whose height is five (5) feet or Jess shall be screened
with shrubbery that is tall enough to fully screen the units from view.
Equipment five (5) feet to :sixteen (16) feet above grade shall be
screened with hedges that are half of the height of the item to be
screened. In such instances,. the required hedge shall not be any
less than five (5) feet in height. Anything higher than sixteen ('1 6)
shall be screened with shrubbery that is a minimum of eight. (8) in
height_
(p) Landscaping may be permitted in easements only with the written
permission of the easement holder. Written permission shall be
submitted as part of the site plan or landscape plan review..
(4) Foundation Landscaping Requirements
(a) Foundation landscaping shall be required. This shall incorporate trees,
shrubs and groundcovers with the minimum required specifications as
set forth in 4.6.1.6(E) Multiple tiers of plant material should be utilized
and thoughtfully designed to accomplish the goal of softening the
building mass while adding vibrant color and textures.
(b) New multi -story structures or landscape improvements to existing
multistructures shall. adhere to the landscape requirements set forth in
this section. The purpose of these requirements is to aesthetically and
visually buffer larger structures and to maintain an appropriately scaled
relationship between the height of the structure and its surrounding.
landscape. Foundation trees with specifications listed in Table 1 shall
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.B.
be planted along the building facade that faces a Right -of -Way. The
spacing of these trees shall be; determined based on. the. average
canopy width of the proposed tree. These trees shall be spaced
appropriately so that the canopies shall be touching at average.
maturity. Typical Foundation trees and spacing requirements are listed
in Table 2. All trees listed in Table 2 are examples. Other species may
be used so long as'the spacing meets the intent of this section.
Table 1. Foundation 'free Specifications
Mean
Structure
Height tfeeti
Minimum
Tree: Height
(feet)
Minimum Tree
Spread (feet)
Minimum
Overall Palm
Height feet
To '15
1`2 to 14 (code)
5
12 (code)
15 to 25
14 to 16
6
15'
26 to 35
16 to 18
7
20
35 and qreater
16 to ,18
1 7`
25:
Table 2. Typical Foundation Trees and Spacing:. Requirements
Tree Species
Typical
Spacing
Quercus vir iniana Live QA
30'
Burs.era.simaruba (Gumbo' Limbo )
30'
Swietenia maha oni Mahogany Tree
30'
Cocos. nucifera Coconut Palm):
20'
lllfod etia bifurcata Foxtail Palm
20'
Vgitchia montgomeriana (Montgomery
Palm )
15'
Bismarckia nobilis Bismarck Palm
25"
Phoenix d.actylifera. (Date_ Palm )
25'
(5) Special Landscape Regulations for Properties- within. the Central
Business: District (CBD)
(a) Landscape islands shall be installed within designated On-Street
Parking locations. Properties submltti rig g for Site Plan Modifications
that are designated as Class Nor higher are required to install on-
street landscape islands. Site Plan Modifications that are classified
as Class III or lower that are. proposing,' anstreet landscape islands
shall adhere to the requirements outlined in this section. All islands
are to be curbed with. Type `F' curbing; to protect plant material..
There are-three types of landscape islands found within designated
on- street parking: sites, They are Intersection Islands; Driveway
Islands and Parallel Parking. Islands.
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.B.
1. Intersection Islands are required at the corners of
intersecting. streets; These islands shall be a minimum of ten
feet (10') in length. One (1) palm tree and associated
understory plantings shall be located in.each island and shall
not pose a hazard to site visibility, if applicable, each palm
shall be located behind traffic signs. Species and size to be
.consistent with those existing within adjacent on- street
parking islands.
2. Driveway Islands are required on each side of the driveway
apron leading into the property, These islands shall be a
minimum of eight feet (8') in length. One (1) accent tree or
.palm and associated understory plantings shall be located in
each island and shall not pose a hazard to site visibility.
Species and size to be consistent with those existing within
.adjacent on- street parking islands.
3. Parallel Parking Islands shall be used to break up large
expanses of pavement utilizing shade- producing canopy
trees and associated understory plantings. No .more than six
(6) parallel parking spaces are allowed between the nearest
parallel parking island and the subject property submitting for
.a Site Plan Modification. Spaces, will be counted. from the
nearest street intersection. Each island shall be a minimum
of twenty -two feet (22') in length and contain at least one (1.)
canopy tree and associated understory plantings. Species
and size to be consistent with those existing. within adjacent
on- street parking islands.
Properties abutting Atlantic Avenue are exempt from the
requirement of constructing on- street landscape `islands The
maintenance and irrigating of islands shall be the sol e.
responsibility of the property owner who is. located adjacent
to these 'islands. Construction of landscape islands shall not
create traffic safety hazards.. The utilization of root barriers
will be required in instances where utilities are
present. All compacted soil, rock and other debris shall be
removed to a depth of thirty inches (30 ") below top of curb
and replaced with a sixty -forty (60140) mixture of sand to
topsoil.
Existing site conditions will be examined during the plan
review process.. Flexibility for location and size of islands will
be considered in. achieving the overall goal of creating a
consistent and unified streetscape.
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.
EXHIBIT " C
SITE PLAN CONDITIONS
1. Address all Site Plan and Engineering Technical items. (Exhibit A and Exhibit 13
2. That technical.. item number 9 an exhibit B: be. modified to read that the sidewalks in
the CBD zoning district be a minimum of 8 feet and 10 feet wide and that the
sidewalks should be 10 feet along Atlantic Avenue_ and on Federal Highway and S
feet on all other locations within the project.
1 That the plans be revised'. to correctly note the building frontage dimension along NE
.6th Avenue..
4. That the plans be revised to correctly' :note the northern frontage dimensions of
building VI.
5. That thei shared parking calculation table noted on the site plan be revised. to be
consistent With the current development proposal..
6. That the applicant contributes the cost of a shuttle bus trolley to the City.
7. That the applicant design and fund turn lane improvements (NE 1st
Avenue /Northbound right turn lane on to NE 6th Avenue) and provide the cost for the
traffic signal at NE 6th Avenue and NE 15t Street.
S That a written finding of concurrency`approva.l from the School D': strict be submitted.
9. That the applicant funds a bus shelter along Federal: Highway:
10. That the provision of workforce housing units be addressed per an agreement, to be
approved by the Community Improvement Director and executed prior to certification
of the site plan.
11.That at least one building achieves LEED certification..
12. Applicant shall provide design plans and pay for the closure of N.E. 7th Avenue at
N.E. 1St Street, A temporary closure is to be provided. at this time and if warranted
after project impacts are analyzed the permanent closure would be .constructed:
13..Applicant shall provide. design. plans and pay all costs for traffic calming on Palm
Square, which may include a cul -de -sac, beginning at the intersection with ,Atlantic
Avenue and south to S.E. 2nd Street in accordance with the City's: LDRs and as
determined. by the City Engineer.
14: That the roll down gates have knox boxes to allow entrance.
15. if the Board.. that the loading facilities are adequate, the management'.company
shall require delivery services to utilize the designated loading zones exclusively,
and this be noted on the plan.
16.That the two tandem; parking spaces in the subgrade parking area on the west side.
of WE 7th Avenue are to be eliminated
17,T hat the last parking space in all dead -end parking tiers be striped -out to provide
adequate,turnaround options.
18. That the photometric plans be revised to include "illumination levels in the eastlwest
courtyards.
19. unbundle parking from rentlpurchase for those residents who do not need a car or a:
parking:space.
20.Atlanti.c Crossing will disseminate: third:. party bicycle rental Information to all
residents.
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.
21. Provide an inside,. safe and secure storage area for bicycles with racks for a
minimum of 86 bicycles for the residents of Atlantic Crossing.
22. Provide storage, showers and lockers for employees.
23. Provide space for a permanent transportation information kiosk within the lobby or
mailroom areas. with info. on short term vehicle rentals: The kiosk will contain: info
and route and schedule information for Palm Tran, Tri -Rail, the Delray Shuttle, and
the Roundabout as well as new or substitute providers (such as Tri -Rail Coastal
Link); info on how to start a. carpool and vanpool; details of the emergency ride home
program; and'Tri -Rail Bicycle Locker Program Application Forms,
24. Provide the following information at each calendar year to SAFE and the City for the
first 5 years following occupancy;
a. The number of residents who are paying a lower rent, because they don't own a
car; or need a parking space,
b_ The number of owner stored bicycles at calendar year end,
c. The number of times the residents used a community Vehicle for grocery
shopping. The number of times the shared bicycles are used in a calendar year
.25. Install. a device that counts and records the number of motor vehicles that enter and
exit the garages by hr/day, and report this activity annually to the SAFE and the City..
26.That if the traffic study and the City deem that ,retractable electric or pneumatic
bollards are a viable option to assist in the closure of NE Seventh Avenue the
developer will fund this system including on -site and remote operation.
27.That the trash receptacles on -site as labeled be accompanied by recycling
receptacles and that residential and commercial. recycling be provided to the entire
site.
28. That the green wall shall be considered a trellis and shall be allowed to encroach in
the setback along Federal Highway.
29.That the applicant will create an ingress from Federal Highway adjacent to the
location of the egress into the garage level as long as this is approved by the FDOT
and the City Engineer.
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.
EXHIBIT " l
LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS
1. That all tl e.Landscape Technical: Items are addressed.
2. That the vegetation be.. maintained below 3 feet and above 6 feet to maintain good.
surveillance throughout the property.
3 That item number two (#2) of the Landscape Technical Items be: fully funded: by the
developer and that includes the: relocation of all. of the trees determined by. the City
Landscape Planner including all root pruning, relocation of the trees and putting
them into their new site and establishing them.
4. That the project have additional {lotted vegetation on the upper deck above the. porte
cochere on building number Four -S.
5. That additional multilevel vegetative screening. be provided around. all switch
cabinets and transformer enclosures wherever possible when not conflicting with an
access point and that the screening doors. be provided to staff for review for
appropriate 'aesthetics_
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.8.
EXHIBIT "E"
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION CONDITIONS
I . That the windows of the. businesses and offices remain unobstructed by signage,
2. That the metal roof material on Building IV -S be revised to either barrel clay tile; or a
canvas awning to match the other proposed awnings on the building.
3. A 200 -foot line of sight survey needs to be submitted for verification for the roof top
equipment .o.n Buildings M.N. and V
4. That the rooftop equipment be relocated to the interior of the roof deck and the
requisite line of sight surveys submitted for buildings IIINI- N &VI -S.
5. That a note be added to the plans that indicate light. transmission for ground. floor
glass areas be no greater than 20 %.
6. That at least one building achieves LEED certification_
7. That the developer study screening mechanical equipment that may be visible from
the upper floors within the development, and to provide perimeter screening of any
visible. mechanical equipment from the sides.
8. That the developer modifies the metal awnings on .building VI and building IV -S to be
more proportional to the building and also to provide additional shutter detailing.
9. That more shutters be provided on Building. number Vi, not including the interior
courtyard areas, just the exterior street-facing elevations and again to work on the
proportion of the small metal awniings:and overhangs.
10 That the Art Deco building, in the revised elevations, has a lower level glass which is
storefront with no simulated mullions and that the stone material is identified with
"ST -1.''
11. That any tree or tree -like vegetation that is planted in that location. (along Seventh
Avenue and along Veterans Park) will have a minimum twenty -two foot (22') planted
height and that the. connector area between building V and building lV -N be one foot
(1) back from the building wall of. the top floor of the Mediterranean style building,
City Commission Meeting on January 21, 2014; Item 9.13.